He is not be wrong in his eyes at that particular moment. He could be wrong in my eyes, and he could be wrong in his eyes after being shown a view he never considered before.
Opinion after the fact isn't all that important here, though. He thought it was right at the time, and if he thought so at the time of a given action, it was right when it happened.
People admit to being wrong all the time!
Yes, but usually they're admitting wrongdoing based on some moral standard beyond their own opinion, even if that standard is just collective cultural norms.
People want to do what they believe is right according to their perspective unless they are shown they were wrong; then they change their minds. This happens all the time.
When people are convinced of having been morally wrong, they're usually adjusting their views against some standard that isn't simply their own opinion. Practically speaking, people do not operate as if they think right and wrong is entirely up to them and them alone. Society simply couldn't function if everyone believed that and acted as such.
Outside of a threat, I cannot give you information to convince you not to rape if that is what you WANT to do, I can give you information to convince you not to rape if you are going to do it because you believe it is the morally right thing to do though.
But if I believe it's right, and if I believe that "right" for me is entirely up to my own judgment, what would you appeal to in order to change my mind? After all, you cannot say what I'm doing is
wrong, because to judge the morality of something
I do by any standard beyond
my own standard is not consistent with purely subjective morality. You would have to concede that my act is moral, because my standard is the only standard which applies to my own behavior, and my standard said it was okay. Your standard applies only to you and no one else.
Under oubjective morality, what would you tell a determined rapist to to get him to quit raping?
If rape being wrong is an objective standard (or even a culturally relative standard which is different but less of a problem), then he can be morally wrong, regardless of whether he thinks he is right or wrong. If it is also a moral imperative to prevent harm like that, then using force to stop him becomes a moral act. If, however, everything that everyone does at any given moment is "right" then me stopping him from raping is just as morally correct as him doing the raping. No act can really be wrong, and so morality becomes utterly meaningless on an interpersonal level, and it ultimately comes down to people using violence or threats of violence to control the behavior of others. Right and wrong no longer become relevant; it's no longer about whether you should do something, but whether you can do something.
And that moral authority external to your own opinion is MY moral authority.
Of course! Whose else would it be?
If my opinion is the only authority that is morally binding my behavior, then your opinion of my behavior means literally nothing, and to judge my behavior as right or wrong by anything besides my opinion would be inconsistent and invalid.
Actually it would be wrong for me, and those who agree with me (which are a lot of people).
Well, no. Your opinion is the standard by which your behavior is judged, and another person's opinion is the standard by which that person's behavior is judged. Whether these opinions line up with those of others is incidental at best.
But then the same goes for your objective morality; your God’s wrong only means wrong for your God and those (like you) who agree with him. How is that any different?
Do you mean divine command theory? Divine command holds that the moral standard by which all actions are judged is God's command, and that it applies to everyone, not just God himself. It's different from saying that there are as many moralities as there are people, and that all are just as valid.
Unless you or anyone else allows that authority over them; which is the same for your God under Objective morality. How is that any different?
The idea of moral realism or objectivism does not actually require a god, just so you know.
How would this be different if morality were objective?
Because if "rape is wrong" were objectively false, or even if it were false according to a collective cultural standard, then my behavior would be wrong even if I thought it were right.
What problems am I facing?
I've laid out several. The most basic problem is threefold: one, right and wrong is inherently subjective and thus purely a matter of the subject's opinion of their own actions; two, given this, nothing a person does can be wrong, as if they have done something, they already decided they should do it, so it
is moral; and three, you have no basis on which to inform someone on what they should do, because to appeal to anything besides that person's own opinion is to be philosophically inconsistent.
So absolute is an external standard with no room for compromise, where as objective is an external standard that allows room for compromise.
Sort of. I think contextual variation is a better way to phrase it than compromise, but whatever.
Your definition of Objective sounds a lot like my definition of subjective except for the external part; I believe the standard for subjective morality is internal.
They should sound quite similar, since that external truth value is the key difference.
By understanding the difference between right and wrong.
You're ducking the question, and what you're saying is nonsensical (you know whats right by knowing what's right). What do you use to know what's right or wrong?
