Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair points and I now believe I was careless with my discussion of "moral relativism" and exactly what that term means. If you'll allow me to start again...

First off, can we agree on my definition of "objective" and "subjective". I do believe that the OP has conflated these terms with "universal" and "relative".

If so, we might be able to agree that morality is, by definition, a subjective matter. We can't measure morals the same way we do mass, velocity, temperature or financial currency. Morality isn't an object or an energy that can be studied in a science lab. It's a conceptual evaluation of our actions and motives. It belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Furthermore, the existence of a god that weighs in on morality, prescribing a code of moral values and judging our actions would not make morality any less subjective. Ergo, theistic leading questions along the lines of "see, and where do these morals come from?" don't score any points for them in their efforts to prove even a god, never mind their favorite one.

If we can put that behind us, on to your points...

Absolutely, we're in agreement on all those points.

The question of universal vs. relative is an interesting one and your soldier/murderer example has given me pause.

I would first say that aggressive war is now recognized as a war crime. When W Bush and Cheney led our nation and others into a war with Iraq, they became personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I would argue the moral culpability lies with political leaders who launch aggressive wars rather than on the soldiers carrying them out. Whereas the serial killer is acting on their own accord and for different motives.

Agreed, to an extent. A soldier or other serviceman has a moral obligation to disobey an immoral order. This is not just me opining. This is the stated policy of the US Armed Forces, and it is important enough that at least when I was in boot camp we airmen were given one entire day of classroom study on the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. We were trained that we had a duty to not only disobey any order contrary to the GC or other obvious order to commit atrocity, but to report the officer issuing such orders. (I know I'm coming close to conflating morality and legality here, and I ask your forgiveness as I dance close to that edge).

Now, the common soldier doesn't have the legitimate authority to refuse an order to go to Iraq in order to wage war. However, he can with moral authority refuse such an order, suffer the legal consequences, and sleep comfortably at night.

Then there is "justifiable" (defensive) war, say when fighting against an aggressor that has invaded your country or coming to the aid of a country that has been invaded. In this case, the moral culpability still lies with the political leaders that launched the aggressive war.

Agreed, with the unwieldy caveat above applying.

Motivation is also important in our evaluations of moral behavior. "Good" or "evil" imply a choice that was made. In the movie, "Terminator 2", Dr. Myles Bennett Dyson is the inventor of an AI breakthrough that ultimately led to the nuclear holocaust that destroyed human civilization and ended 3 billion lives. However, his motive was to make a breakthrough that would help society. He did not intend the consequences and so, I would argue, is innocent at least morally.

And this is another good point. Intent does matter. But say, for instance, Einstein's letter to FDR about nuclear weaponry: does he not bear some burden for the Japanese deaths caused by the Bomb? He wrote that letter knowing full well that if he succeeded in his persuasion, people could die, and perhaps needlessly (though I don't hold that to be the case, others do)? And does he bear any responsibility for the innocents who died under that particular nuclear bombardment?

Getting back to the soldier and serial killer example, the motives are also different. A soldier might kill to protect his country. This is a different motive than a serial killer who murders for pleasure.

I get what your saying, and agree that intent factors into any moral judgement. The question then becomes at what point should the actor be expected to see how his action might be perverted? And does he have a responsibility to take that into account?

Let me also clarify what I meant in that last paragraph you quoted. I was sloppy in my communication.

Instead of rape, let's use an example of a practice where different societies disagree on its morality: female genital mutilation (on my mind since I heard an interview recently in the news about the practice).

To some societies, female genital mutilation is necessary for "sexual purity" and will ensure her passage into Heaven. To sane societies, it's a horrid and barbaric practice, utterly immoral.

Now, since my understanding of "moral relativism" may be shaky, can you clarify for me how a moral relativist would evaluate our disagreement. Would a moral relativist argue, as I suspect, that our disagreement is just a matter of opinion, that my evaluation that a screaming six year old girl being held down by four adults while a fifth takes a knife and hacks away at her genitals is a horridly immoral practice, is just my culture?

There are a few ways:

1) A descriptive MR would say that that is clear evidence for moral relativity, with assigning weight to one or the other moral standard.

2) A cultural MR would say that each standard is equally valid, and that we ought not impose our own judgements upon those societies practicing FGM.

3) An ethical non-realist would argue that morals have no objective existence in reality and would be skeptical of any ability to assign moral values.

In other words, some might argue that it's just a matter of opinion, while others might argue that differing moral values depend on the framework being imposed, and still others would say that one cannot say objectively that something is good or bad. There are other "flavors" to moral relativist, as well; this is by no means a complete list of them here.

This gets back to my point that "not all subjective opinions are equal". In making a case against female genital mutilation, I would argue:
1. The concept of "sexual purity" in this context is pure woo.
2. There is no evidence for any god who requires it.
3. There is no evidence that her passage into Heaven will result.
4. The practice destroys her ability to enjoy sex, thereby reducing the joy in the universe, all for no reason.
5. The practice violates her sovereignty as she neither gave consent nor could she at her young age.
6. The practice inflicts pain and suffering, possibly death, for no reason.

The counter arguments would likely involve nothing more than religious assertions with no evidence to back them up. Therefore, I would argue that my assessment of the morality of female genital mutilation is a much stronger case than one they could make.

And I would agree with you. But is that because those values have an objective existence, or because we both are products of a sociocultural millieu which espouses those values?

I'll have to respond later but I've given the thumbs up to both counter posts to my own because this is an interesting discussion and both of you have given me things to think about.

You might like my follow up post to the one you're responding to. I tried to be a little more clear in my definitions of terms.

Perhaps my love of spreadsheets has to do with my training in business school. Anyway, I'll respond later when I can.

Likewise, bud. I'm learning a lot from this conversation, and that's always a good thing. Thanks.