Is there an absolute morality?

[Tinker Grey]

But giving reasons that adds weight to an arguement require an objctive basis. The moment you appeal to that objective basis you have abandoned subjective morality.

Wrong. Reasons don't require an objective basis; they require intersubjective communication and recognized commonality of experience -- which is subjective.

 

[stevevw]

lol So first you say it can be interpreted in different ways, and now you point to you saying the word could be replaced. Bologna. Just own a mistake for once.

Ive own plenty of mistakes. So what mistake would you like me to own. You seem to be the one doing my thinking. Did I say interpret or replace or both.

Neither of them are true, period. There is no other sense for "true" other than "real and objective".

I disagree. If the statement is subjective its only an expression of the subject so there is no objective beyond the person. So we have 2 ways for how object applies.

Is there some other food we could refer to instead that would make the statement "X is tasty" true?

Vanilla ice cream is tasty.
A hamburger is tasty.
Pizza is tasty.

What food is tasty if chocolate ice cream is not tasty?

The foods that are not tasty are the ones that the subject thinks are not tasty. Because tasty is a subjective term it can be replaced by other subjective terms. So your atatement as already shown by independent evdience is a subjective statement and therefore is not object beyond the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. Reasons don't require an objective basis; they require intersubjective communication and recognized commonality of experience -- which is subjective.

BUt reasoniong does require an objective base to reason from. Morality is a rational enterprise. We don't just feel or prefer morals. WE need to reason them out to see if they stand up independent of subjects.

So lets imagine to people argueing about a moral situation. So when there is no comon ground and people are disagreeing they must be using reasoning to support their position. Otherwise they are just calling out statements about the subjective self that are just expressions of personal experience which do not say anything about how things really should be.

If someone says "I prefer that people didnt rape" this is hardly a convincing arguement as prefer implies a peronal opinion and people can say "so what". But if someone says "rape is wrong because it harms people and harming people is no good for society. NOt only that heres some independent support that rape harms humans. That is a far more convincing arguement that the opponent will find hard to dispute and is a better basis for making morals.

But if we say that people just use agreement alone without any basis for what they say then we are in trouble because there is no way to tell if what someone says is really correct. That it really will be the best for people. That is a dangerous way to determine morality as it allows right moral behaviour to compete on par with wrong moral behaviour because there in way way to tell which is best apart for a persons ability to express their sentiments. But I think morality doesnt work that way.

When you say "recognised by experience" what does recognise mean. As we know personal experience can skew peoples view and prevent them from making clear and reasoned decisions recognition is not enough. So thats already not a good basis.

I suspect "recognised by experience" that this is actually recognising the experiences we have already had morally and how this has already been reasoned and accepted as a moral truth. Otherwise we may as well blind fold ourselves and throw darts at a board containing what is the right and wrong way to behave.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@stevevw, to the extent that people have common experiences they can agree on, they can have a society. Their interactions are what we might call morality.

To the extent that there is no agreement, there is no society. There is no morality however much any group might say they are more moral than they other.

That agreement is the basis for morality shows that it is subjective/intersubjective. To the extent a group is not formed because no agreement can be reached shows morality is subjective.

That you want to be able to say that some act is "really, truly, actually wrong" does not entail that your wants and desires are objectively true.

Wanting to be able to say these things is really a desire for some external entity/force to validate one's "feelings".

It ain't gonna happen. You want validation, then find a group that agrees with you. It's all you're gonna get.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw, to the extent that people have common experiences they can agree on, they can have a society. Their interactions are what we might call morality.
To the extent that there is no agreement, there is no society. There is no morality however much any group might say they are more moral than they other.

That agreement is the basis for morality shows that it is subjective/intersubjective. To the extent a group is not formed because no agreement can be reached shows morality is subjective.

That would be a logical fallacy. A society can have agreement but morality can still be objective. What happens when different cultures/societies come together. Whose agreed morals are right. Why should one agreed morality dominate another culture with a different agreed morality. Who is right. Is it might is right, How do we sort this out to see which culture is really right morlaly.

That you want to be able to say that some act is "really, truly, actually wrong" does not entail that your wants and desires are objectively true.

Its not just about desires. The idea is that sometimes moral statements are really really true independent of subjective thinking. So we go looking for how morality works in reality. People don't just desire moral truths. They actually make them moral truths because they know they are like laws of nature.

Wanting to be able to say these things is really a desire for some external entity/force to validate one's "feelings".

It ain't gonna happen. You want validation, then find a group that agrees with you. It's all you're gonna get.

But I don't want anything. I just look at how morality works, whats needed and base it on that. ITs common sesne really.

I keep coming back to this idea of common agreement on morals does not require a common basis. I disagree. People cannot agree or disagree without a basis. When you ask a person why they think something is wrong they will appeal to some basis. Are you saying morality is not a rational enterprise.

 

[stevevw]

For a simple example, "age of consent" never agreed to
by the girls of course.
Rape on this side of a geographic line or date
is just good fun on the other.

Nothing objective going on there.

So how do they decide the age of consent.

 

[stevevw]

No. You haven't shown it. You've CLAIMED it, but you haven't shown it.

OK ;ets use the extreme example as you claim even this has not proven that morality is objective. Can we say that anyone why thinks rape is morally ok is objectively wrong.

Your technique so far seems to be to use the extreme examples in an effort to try to get people to think that the near universal agreement on some moral issue means it is objective fact.

As I've already said, there is near universal agreement that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, does that make it an objective fact that it's terrible?

But you’re using a logical fallacy so your argument fails here. You cannot use subjective preferences to determine morality as this is only a description of the subject. Whereas morality is prescriptive which tells us how we “ought” to behave? You cannot say to someone you ought not like Star Wars as it’s wrong. It doesn’t equate.

I mean you had a go at me for continually repeating something. It seems you are doing the same. How many times do I have to tell you.

But the thing is, that truth about maths can be easily applied to lots of equations and demonstrated to be true. And it can be described in clear and concise language - something I have been asking you for ages now to demonstrate with morality, and which you have constantly refused to do.

So can objective morality. Ie humans + Rape = wrong and 2+2=4. Rape harms humans it has been scientifically verified beyond human subjective views. 2+2=4 is also a fact which has been supported independent of subjective views.

Of course, this analogy only works if morality is objective. If it is subjective, then it falls apart. Your argument here is nothing more than, "If morality is objective, then it's objective." Since it uses the conclusion as a premise, then it's circular reasoning, and thus logically flawed.

No it uses rationality and logic to come to the determination. It assumes morality is objective and then sets out to reason that case.

I mean I find this strange considering if you ask anyone why they think something is wrong they will reason against some basis like human wellbeing or empathy. That is using an objective basis.

If someone said I prefer something not to happen or I feel that something is right we would ask for more explanation as this is not enough. People will eventually come back to some basis as to why they think something is morally wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ive own plenty of mistakes. So what mistake would you like me to own. You seem to be the one doing my thinking. Did I say interpret or replace or both.

You said tasty could be interpreted as not tasty in one place, and you said we could replace tasty with not tasty in another.

I disagree. If the statement is subjective its only an expression of the subject so there is no objective beyond the person. So we have 2 ways for how object applies.

The statements are not true. They can't be true and false at the same time. You know you're in trouble when you're trying to deny the law of non-contradiction.

The foods that are not tasty are the ones that the subject thinks are not tasty. Because tasty is a subjective term it can be replaced by other subjective terms. So your atatement as already shown by independent evdience is a subjective statement and therefore is not object beyond the subject.

Is "tastiness" a property of any food? That's what the statement "Chocolate ice cream is tasty" asserts. That tastiness is a property of chocolate ice cream. This is how grammar works.

"Chocolate ice cream is tasty" is not true.
"I like chocolate ice cream" is true.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK ;ets use the extreme example as you claim even this has not proven that morality is objective. Can we say that anyone why thinks rape is morally ok is objectively wrong.

You can say whatever you want, and we can say whatever we want. But no, you have not shown morality to be objective. You using emotionally loaded examples and emotional arguments supports that morality is not objective as you are not using cold hard facts and logic (that you claim will support objective morality).

But you’re using a logical fallacy so your argument fails here. You cannot use subjective preferences to determine morality as this is only a description of the subject. Whereas morality is prescriptive which tells us how we “ought” to behave? You cannot say to someone you ought not like Star Wars as it’s wrong. It doesn’t equate.

We can say people to do things and how to behave, in fact thats what the justice system is all about. That in no way makes morality objective.

I mean you had a go at me for continually repeating something. It seems you are doing the same. How many times do I have to tell you.

Heh.

So can objective morality. Ie humans + Rape = wrong and 2+2=4. Rape harms humans it has been scientifically verified beyond human subjective views. 2+2=4 is also a fact which has been supported independent of subjective views.

Math is a formal logical system. But please, make your proof that 2+2=4 (hint, its very complicated). But either way, math is not morals (neither is it physical reality).

You have not supported that "harm" is an objective value.

No it uses rationality and logic to come to the determination. It assumes morality is objective and then sets out to reason that case.

You cannot assert that which you want to prove.

Also for using logic, GIGO.

I mean I find this strange considering if you ask anyone why they think something is wrong they will reason against some basis like human wellbeing or empathy. That is using an objective basis.

Human wellbeing and empathy is not objective.

If someone said I prefer something not to happen or I feel that something is right we would ask for more explanation as this is not enough. People will eventually come back to some basis as to why they think something is morally wrong.

Yes, reasoning about morals is what we do, that supports morals not being objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

So can objective morality. Ie humans + Rape = wrong and 2+2=4. Rape harms humans it has been scientifically verified beyond human subjective views. .

Lots of things are harmful to humans; doesn't make it wrong though. Any proof that rape is wrong?

 

[Astrid]

So how do they decide the age of consent.

I think you are getting the idea.
The group just makes an arbitrary decision.

There is no objective / empirical / god given way of making a general rule about
the evil of ' rape" because theres no such way to determine what is or is not rape.

If you have facts to show there is such a source of a rule plz tell us.

 

[Astrid]

Lots of things are harmful to humans; doesn't make it wrong though. Any proof that rape is wrong?

Part of it is the " reasonable person" standard. If someone does great bodily and psychological harm to another, the reasonable person will
say this is wrong. If said harm is sexual in nature, we call it rape.

When i was in group counseling this one girl was all upset
that the " systen" let her down, insult to injury and all that.

She had been doing drink and drugs with this guy in her
apartment. Wanted to just play around, she says now.
After a few days she decided she had been raped.
The guy was interviewed but not indicted.

I think both of them were kind of disgusting but
Rape, no.
She is definitely a drama queen.

 

[stevevw]

Looks to me like you are trying to have it both ways. You can't say that morality works completely differently, but then claims it's objective just like science.

Yeah I know people can trip up on this. There are two statements
1) moral values are independent facts similar to scientific facts and not determined by subjective thinking
2) But the moral facts are not measured physically like in science.

And how many times do I need to point out that treating something as though it's objective does not make it objective? I've said this countless times, and still you bring out things like this.

Yeah I know this is becoming a bit repetitive. Ok let me try something different and more real life. I know you will think this is an extreme example but it makes the point fast. Do you think torturing innocent children is morally wrong.

So the best argument you have is, "I can't prove it, you'll just have to believe me"?

Not at all. I'trying to explain how something can be a fact or truth without it material. Do you think there are facts or truths in the world that are non-physical.

And an "ought" is a subjective thing.

An "öught"is not subjective. What do you mean an "Ought" is subjective.

Person 1: "Killing criminals as punishment is wrong."
Person 2: "That's just your opinion."

But of course, you always go to the extreme examples that have almost universal agreement in order to prove your point, as though people will confuse universal agreement on a subjective issue as evidence for objectivity.

Actually there is 100% agreement on the core morals. Anyone who disagrees is said to be mistaken and objectively wrong. So its easier to use these as examples as they hit right at the heart of moral truths. So any arguement about these morals has an objective base. Even secular moral realist acknowledge there needs to be an objective base for moral disagreement and agreement.

If we continue your example we could then say.
Person 1: "Killing criminals as punishment is wrong."
Person 2: "That's just your opinion."
Person 1: No its not my opinion. I base this on the fact that retributive justice does not deter crime and research shows that rehabilitaive or deterent justice works better. Because human life has intrinsic value we should try to preserve life as musch as possible.

Person 2: May continue to dispute person 1 but if the independnet evdience stands up they have no justification to continue to assert that its person 1's opinion. Person 1 has moved things from subjective opinions to something outside each of them that can act as a basis for determining what is morlaly right or wrong.

So any moral agreement will eventually be traced back to some objective basis that is outside people be it human wellbeing, human happiness ect that people agree is the best basis. You cannot argue and reason subjectively because subjective opinions are not wrong. They don't need to be reasoned about what is the best behaviour. But morals do.

Well, here in Australia when there was disagreement over whether gay couples should have the right to get married, they had a plebiscite.

They also vote for political parties that share their views.

Ok I think your saying that moral disagreements are sorted by majority opinion. Well some are. Is that right. BUt I am wondering if this is a good way to sort out morals because the majority may be wrong. How can we determine if its really right or wrong.

The disagreement we see with scientific issues is nothing like what we see with morality. Virtually all scientists in relevant fields hold the idea that nuclear processes are occuring within the sun, for example. You may find a handful; of scientists who disagree, but that number will be absolutely microscopic compared to the number who accept it, and I'd also bet that most of the disagreeing scientists are in fields that are irrelevant to the issue.

Yes but your using a well established proven fact which has come from a history of disagreement. Most scientific facts we have today have come from much disagreement and as time has gone by and we gain more knowledge we understand better what is really going on. We are a step closer to the truth and facts of the matter.

That disagreement matches what we see in morality. Like slavery was considered OK and I would imagine as things progressed more and more people began to question and disagree about enslaving humans as a sub species. Evdience came along that showed slaves were equal as humans and this began the demise of slavery.

No you have not shown it. You've just repeated the same claims. You can say it's prescriptive as much as you want, but merely saying it doesn't prove it or demonstrate it in any way at all.

Its not a claim I showed you how "descriptive and prescriptive" work. Its not my idea but thankyou. Its just how it works according to how ethics work. You can look it up if you want.

No. You want me to accept that morality is objective before you show me that morality is objective? Doesn't work that way.

No I want to go through with you how morality works, how you think it works. It would be useless me trying to change anything in you and thats not my aim. This is about debating the issue and that means reasoning things down to see what is happening. That includes understanding how subjective and objective morality differs and why. Is it practical, do people really act that way ect.

As I've repeatedly said, acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective. I'm astounded that I need to keep pointing this out.

Well you know I make the same arguement against that each time. So I guess I could say that I have to keep repeating my rejection of your objection lol.

And again, acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective.

But that is what moral realism is. It says that we do act and speak like there are moral objectives or truths in the world and that some of this is actually true.

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
Moral realism - Wikipedia

The proposition that we are justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe in our lived experience of the physical world. So, any defeater of our lived moral experience would have to show that objective morality was totally unreliable and that we could not realize objective morality at all.

So saying that "acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective" is not enough to defeat that there are objective morals. You have to come up with a defeater that our lived moral experience is totally unjustified and wrong. IE that our intuition that its wrong to abuse a child is completely out of whack and we are imagining it..

 

[stevevw]

I think you are getting the idea.
The group just makes an arbitrary decision.

OK so we apply this to real life. We have different groups making arbitrary (relative/subjective) moral determinations. Each one can be different according to culture and socialization. Its hard to know what constitutes a culture or group that can have independent right to their own relative morals. Is it 20 people, an isolated village, a state. Most people say a nation but that seems wrong as a culture can be created within a culture even.

Anyway so no one is really wrong about their relative morals so another culture cannot say that they are really wrong as to that cultures relative position their think they are right. Is that right so far.

There is no objective / empirical / god given way of making a general rule about
the evil of ' rape" because theres no such way to determine what is or is not rape.

If you have facts to show there is such a source of a rule plz tell us.

Morality is a rational enterprise. There are reasons why certain acts are wrong. We don't just use any opinion but rather qualified opinion from across the spectrum of ways people can be affected morally. Looking at the physical, psychological/emotional, cognition, personal experience, circumstances ect to determine what is the better/best way to behave morally.

So for rape we know as you say different cultures have different positions on rape. But does that mean there is no truth to the matter that rape is wrong objectively. Even if we look at secular positions on this most people say that rape is wrong because it harms humans. What is harm. Anything that denies humans being humans to their full potential. Sam Harris "The Moral Landscape" uses this idea. So here is an objective basis.

WE can look at the physical and psychological affects on humans. There is plenty of evidence. The point is people reason an objective basis of some sort to make the stand that something like rape is wrong for everyone and no personal opinion can change that fact. The fact that different cultures have different positions doesn't mean there is not a moral truth.

Look at how the west condemns the acts of rape in other culture. Not just the west but world organisations like the UN. So they seem to be taking the position that morality is not relative. That some cultures are wrong about their relative view. Even to the point of sanctions and prosecution. In other words it seems most people take the position that there are moral truths regardless of persoanl and cultural views.

 

[Astrid]

Yeah I know people can trip up on this. There are two statements
1) moral values are independent facts similar to scientific facts and not determined by subjective thinking
2) But the moral facts are not measured physically like in science.

Yeah I know this is becoming a bit repetitive. Ok let me try something different and more real life. I know you will think this is an extreme example but it makes the point fast. Do you think torturing innocent children is morally wrong.
Not at all. I'trying to explain how something can be a fact or truth without it material. Do you think there are facts or truths in the world that are non-physical.
An "öught"is not subjective. What do you mean an "Ought" is subjective.

Actually there is 100% agreement on the core morals. Anyone who disagrees is said to be mistaken and objectively wrong. So its easier to use these as examples as they hit right at the heart of moral truths. So any arguement about these morals has an objective base. Even secular moral realist acknowledge there needs to be an objective base for moral disagreement and agreement.

If we continue your example we could then say.
Person 1: "Killing criminals as punishment is wrong."
Person 2: "That's just your opinion."
Person 1: No its not my opinion. I base this on the fact that retributive justice does not deter crime and research shows that rehabilitaive or deterent justice works better. Because human life has intrinsic value we should try to preserve life as musch as possible.

Person 2: May continue to dispute person 1 but if the independnet evdience stands up they have no justification to continue to assert that its person 1's opinion. Person 1 has moved things from subjective opinions to something outside each of them that can act as a basis for determining what is morlaly right or wrong.

So any moral agreement will eventually be traced back to some objective basis that is outside people be it human wellbeing, human happiness ect that people agree is the best basis. You cannot argue and reason subjectively because subjective opinions are not wrong. They don't need to be reasoned about what is the best behaviour. But morals do.

Ok I think your saying that moral disagreements are sorted by majority opinion. Well some are. Is that right. BUt I am wondering if this is a good way to sort out morals because the majority may be wrong. How can we determine if its really right or wrong.

Yes but your using a well established proven fact which has come from a history of disagreement. Most scientific facts we have today have come from much disagreement and as time has gone by and we gain more knowledge we understand better what is really going on. We are a step closer to the truth and facts of the matter.

That disagreement matches what we see in morality. Like slavery was considered OK and I would imagine as things progressed more and more people began to question and disagree about enslaving humans as a sub species. Evdience came along that showed slaves were equal as humans and this began the demise of slavery.

Its not a claim I showed you how "descriptive and prescriptive" work. Its not my idea but thankyou. Its just how it works according to how ethics work. You can look it up if you want.

No I want to go through with you how morality works, how you think it works. It would be useless me trying to change anything in you and thats not my aim. This is about debating the issue and that means reasoning things down to see what is happening. That includes understanding how subjective and objective morality differs and why. Is it practical, do people really act that way ect.

Well you know I make the same arguement against that each time. So I guess I could say that I have to keep repeating my rejection of your objection lol.

But that is what moral realism is. It says that we do act and speak like there are moral objectives or truths in the world and that some of this is actually true.

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
Moral realism - Wikipedia

The proposition that we are justified to believe that objective morality exists based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe in our lived experience of the physical world. So, any defeater of our lived moral experience would have to show that objective morality was totally unreliable and that we could not realize objective morality at all.

So saying that "acting like something is objective doesn't make it objective" is not enough to defeat that there are objective morals. You have to come up with a defeater that our lived moral experience is totally unjustified and wrong. IE that our intuition that its wrong to abuse a child is completely out of whack and we are imagining it..

The criminal came out of the woods. Killed one of the campers!
Later, he comes back, kills another.
Someone shoots him in the back as he runs away.

But that is retributive, morally wrong, and wont work.
He should be made to compensate the victims and get
rehabilitation.

 

[Astrid]

OK so we apply this to real life. We have different groups making arbitrary (relative/subjective) moral determinations. Each one can be different according to culture and socialization. Its hard to know what constitutes a culture or group that can have independent right to their own relative morals. Is it 20 people, an isolated village, a state. Most people say a nation but that seems wrong as a culture can be created within a culture even.

Anyway so no one is really wrong about their relative morals so another culture cannot say that they are really wrong as to that cultures relative position their think they are right. Is that right so far.

Morality is a rational enterprise. There are reasons why certain acts are wrong. We don't just use any opinion but rather qualified opinion from across the spectrum of ways people can be affected morally. Looking at the physical, psychological/emotional, cognition, personal experience, circumstances ect to determine what is the better/best way to behave morally.

So for rape we know as you say different cultures have different positions on rape. But does that mean there is no truth to the matter that rape is wrong objectively. Even if we look at secular positions on this most people say that rape is wrong because it harms humans. What is harm. Anything that denies humans being humans to their full potential. Sam Harris "The Moral Landscape" uses this idea. So here is an objective basis.

WE can look at the physical and psychological affects on humans. There is plenty of evidence. The point is people reason an objective basis of some sort to make the stand that something like rape is wrong for everyone and no personal opinion can change that fact. The fact that different cultures have different positions doesn't mean there is not a moral truth.

Look at how the west condemns the acts of rape in other culture. Not just the west but world organisations like the UN. So they seem to be taking the position that morality is not relative. That some cultures are wrong about their relative view. Even to the point of sanctions and prosecution. In other words it seems most people take the position that there are moral truths regardless of persoanl and cultural views.

I wish you would take time for fewer words!
Out of all tha we distill that its not right to harm
someone,
And, "something like rape" is bad.

I - we- keep looking for a GENERAL RULE that always
applies. If morality is a " fact" then where are the facts to
support it?
'Rape" is always wrong is ridiculous.
"Harming another is always wrong" is the same.
Ridiculous.
Those are not objective empirical facts .
You and me and the man behind the tree can think of
countless real life exceptions.

 

[stevevw]

The criminal came out of the woods. Killed one of the campers!
Later, he comes back, kills another.
Someone shoots him in the back as he runs away.

But that is retributive, morally wrong, and wont work.
He should be made to compensate the victims and get
rehabilitation.

I am not sure of your scenario and what you are trying to say.

 

[stevevw]

I wish you would take time for fewer words!
Out of all tha we distill that its not right to harm
someone,
And, "something like rape" is bad.

I - we- keep looking for a GENERAL RULE that always
applies. If morality is a " fact" then where are the facts to
support it?
'Rape" is always wrong is ridiculous.
"Harming another is always wrong" is the same.
Ridiculous.
Those are not objective empirical facts .

Well when you consider that we make "rape" as wrong and say that anyone who claims "rape" is ok to do is mistaken seems to be making that a rule or law beyond human opinion. Let me ask if someone says "rape" is ok do you think we can say they are wrong objectively.

You and me and the man behind the tree can think of
countless real life exceptions.

But the fact that exceptions are measured against something objective shows that there must be an objective. Otherwise they are not exceptions like "exceptions to the Rule" kind of thing.

So when people are looking for exceptions they are measuring this against what they believe is a moral truth. Like "rape" is wrong and a truth that no one can dispute". This is seen by how world organisations like UN, national declarations and constitions which make these core moral truths unalienable and natural born rights.

 

[Astrid]

I am not sure of your scenario and what you are trying to say.

You think its wrong to kill a murderer.
So, here, see if you think that is always so.
Make it fit your objective morality.

 

[Astrid]

Well when you consider that we make "rape" as wrong and say that anyone who claims "rape" is ok to do is mistaken seems to be making that a rule or law beyond human opinion. Let me ask if someone says "rape" is ok do you think we can say they are wrong objectively.
But the fact that exceptions are measured against something objective shows that there must be an objective. Otherwise they are not exceptions like "exceptions to the Rule" kind of thing.

So when people are looking for exceptions they are measuring this against what they believe is a moral truth. Like "rape" is wrong and a truth that no one can dispute". This is seen by how world organisations like UN, national declarations and constitions which make these core moral truths unalienable and natural born rights.

You cant define rape but you think its a moral truth.