Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

An objective morality -doesn't- say that, and neither did I, so?  Here, lets try another example.

Let;s say that the person who gets run over was an assualt rifle wiedling madman spraying bullets into the crowd, and a person intentionally ran them over.  

Is that bad, neutral, good?  What objective facts of this moral matter are at play when we give him a Heroes Parade?

And here I thought you were unable to understand the exact concept you just outlined. I already gave a rather grim but arguable example of how rape might not be harmful or at least it would outweigh the negative consequences (extinction) which you didn't seem to either acknowledge or at least didn't care to say 'rape is bad in all but some odious hypothetical scenarios' which is why I have such a hard time nailing down this 'objective' thing when there's always exceptions to the damn rule.

I don't think that you provided a basis for rape being a moral good...only a biological necessity.  You would still be a rapist, who caused harm.  The subject of morality ois not biological necessity...and we, personally, are doing no harm in an extinction.  It would not be our fault, through simple refusal to rape...that the human race is or has gone extinct.

The situation is absurd, but still does not break or alter a harm based objective morality.  Talk about utility, eh?  

In any case, sure, even in an objective morality the compelling interest to do a bad thing can exist. Doesn't even have to be so dire as our extinction. It can be wanting something so bad that you steal it, even though you know that theft is wrong. That's something we do. We might come up with plenty of ways to excuse ourselves, or others. The moral judgement hasn't changed though..or we wouldn't need those excuses.

Here's an actual problem with your little scenario there, though. Should the driver have tried to avoid killing the gunner so as to stop him from firing but provide an opportunity for rehabilitation?

Maybe, again, why is this a problem for an objective morality?

Would it have been okay if the only victim that would have fallen due to this restraint were a senior citizen with no family or friends to miss him (since that means the same amount of people, namely 1, would have died)?

Probably, we value individual rescues as heroic acts.

I mean, fuck, if that's not subjective, what the fuck is?

You referred..in each of those cases, to objective facts of the matter.  Perhaps the question you should be asking...is what in any of it is subjective?

Or how would any empirical data help justify either case? Sure, in hindsight you could look at the shooter's mental health history and how likely they are to rehabilitate, but in the moment? That don't count for shit.

Sure, time won't always be on our side?  What's the problem?

Opinion still dominates what ultimately determines what gets written down as being the right thing, but you're not going to get a consensus (or at least only a reluctant one) even if what little contribution the objective data provides plays a role in that kind of 'woulda coulda shoulda' debate.

You keep saying that..but it's still not my opinion that makes rape bad, nor would it be any less bad if I had a different opinion of it. Yes, we all have opinions but to repeatedly say so as this were informative as to anything other than our all having opinions is puerile. So what...we all have opinions. Can opinions be based on facts, are opinions based on facts? Can moral opinions be based on moral facts?