Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

There is no objective measure. All you need are two examples and you make a determination as to which is the better (or worst).

Better and worse compared to what. Don't you need to know what the better and worse is being compared to to determine if they are better and worse. For example If you see 2 paintings of Mona Lisa how do you say they are better or worse unless you have the original Mona Lisa to compare against.

Which leads to the second point...

We've already done this. A girl abducted and gang raped versus a man who has sex with his sleeping wife. As you might have just read 'some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others'. So please don't tell me they are morally equivalent.

I am not saying they are morally equivalent and that is not the point. In the first case we have a clear cut case of a moral wrong. In the second case it is not as clear a case. As you know cases like this are disputed and it can be harder to prove.

But it doesn't change the fact that potentially it’s a case of moral right or wrong even if that moral wrong is less horrible than the other. If it is found that the wife was OK with her husband having sex with her while asleep then there’s no moral wrong. If it is found that she was not OK then it’s a moral wrong.

In both cases we can determine whether there was a moral right or wrong. It doesn’t matter about whether one case is more serious because in each situation a moral right or wrong has been committed. Comparing one to the other doesn't change that fact.

Which leads to the third point. You have a habit of ignoring questions (and ignoring answers as well), so I'm going to have to repeat one. How do you tell that stealing is wrong without any context? The original question didn't mention context but it's impossible to answer without it.

I think I have already answered this so I wasn't ignoring things. Perhaps you did not understand my answer. Here it is again. Objective morality allows for changing context and is not a fixed morality like absolute morality or (Kant’s deontology).

So in one context stealing for fun is objectively wrong and in the different context of where a person may steal medication to save a child’s life it is objectively right to take the medication. It’s the same with the other example I gave that it’s objectively wrong to kill for fun and its objectively right to kill a crazed gunman about to kill a child. I linked this video as support

moral realism doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism. Moral universalism or absolute morality (deontology) means some action is always wrong according to a general principle. Just because I am a moral realist doesn’t mean it will always be wrong to kill.

Is it always wrong to kill? Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objective moralist) in interpreting moral actions.
Just like in mathematics
View attachment 306972
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

Unless you take a deontological view that stealing is wrong in itself. In which case there's not going to be much else to discuss. Because then it becomes 'it's wrong because I say so'. Or more likely, 'it's wrong because God says so'.

A deontological view of morality is more like absolute morality where the moral remains wrong no matter what the context/circumstances so has nothing to do with objective morality. So the person cannot take the medication to save the child’s life no matter what.

BUt this brings up a dilemma for the objectivists as they must find the most objective moral act in any situation. So not saving the child with medication when they could have then causes a greater moral wrong which is allowing life to perish which may be regarded as even culpable murder when you could have saved the child and didn’t. So there for the greater moral becomes the objective moral right thing to do (save a life and not allow the child to die when it was within your means to do so).

The argument then takes a step back to 'does God exist?' If He does then objective morality exists. So just state that and be done. We've all been wasting our time.

Actually deontology is not just about Gods moral laws. It is also human made laws. A soldier following orders and adhering to commands no matter what or a person being arrested according to the letter of the law regardless of the circumstances is also deontological.

Oh, and a third point. I think it was asked in the post to which I'm responding. As to how we feel that our standard of morality is always improving. And it was answered by me about 5 pages back (see what I said about ignoring answers as well?). My response was that we change to suit our environment. So any changes appear to be better (obviously). So I said: 'I think morality might be like that. It's always a good fit for the environment in which we find ourselves, so we'll always consider it to be 'better' than it was.'

After a bit of searching I think I found the post you were referring to Post No.#763. It mentions about species changing with environments. Changes are not good in themselves but simply a better fit and the example of going from warm climate to cold climate then lots of fur is good. But not in an objective sense. You say you think morality is like that in that its always a good fit for the environment we find ourselevs in so we will always consider it to be better than it was.

Is that the post you were referring to. If so I did answer that post and explained why that logic doesn’t work for morality here #805. So I could say that perhaps you were ignoring my reply. I explained that fit for environment in evolution doesn't equate to what is morally right or wrong in the first place because what may be a good fit can also be what we would consider immoral. Because what helps us fit environments for survival sake is a subjective determination we could rationalize anything so long as it helps us survive and survival is not about morality.

You even acknowledged this when you said "the changes for better fit are not good in themselves but simply a better fit". So it doesn’t matter that the fit is better than it was with the changing environment because its not about morality.

Its just about better, like coke is better than Pepsi or having 2 wives is better than one because I will produce more offspring for survival or taking other peoples stuff is better than having none as I will be more comfortable (including taking someone elses fur will be better than no fur as it will make me warm and this is better than the previous context of where I had no fur).

There is no moral ought in these examples just better or worse. There is no basis for measuring morality because its not about morality. So there is no improved morality.

 

[o_mlly]

Marital rights are part of this dicussion. The definition of rape is quite clear. That there are different degress of seriousness is undeniable (sleeping wife v gang rape). As you put it, 'some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others'. Which leads to different people having different views on any given act.

Apparently, you haven't caught up yet on your reading in this thread. We've succinctly defined rape to be the non-statutory, non-consensual and the non-spousal violation of an innocent person's bodily integrity. Back to you.

I think my position on whether morality is objective or subjective has been made abundantly clear by now. I don't see the need to state my position again.

We understand your claim but you have not yet argued as to its validity.

If the preponderance of evidence and reason is in agreement and none in contradiction and those who are competent to judge agree then one person can tell another what he ought or ought not to affirm as true. Agree?

If you agree then explain why the claim that the earth is spherical is objectively true and that the immorality of rape as defined is not.

Logical fallacy. You are assuming that the morality is objective and are now trying to prove it. That's not the way to find out the truth.

? Of course it is.

I posted two arguments in support -- an empirical and rational argument and have asked you multiple time to show the logical error in either argument. You have chosen not to respond.

This doesn't make sense. It's like saying that in binary, each number is a 0 or a 1, but some 1s are more 1 than other 1s.

Nope. Properly understood, the morality of the human act in the concrete is objectively good or evil. The culpability of any particular actor is subjective.

 

[o_mlly]

Humanity will be around for the merest blink of the history of the universe. The only ones who actually care about humanity are us, and that makes it a subjective issue.

? The only ones who care that the earth is spherical are us so "that makes it a subjective issue."

 

[stevevw]

Irrelevant.

Just checking what about that we can show objective morality with extreme examples are you saying this is irrelevant as well.

A more accurate analogy would be to say that since the scientific method can show the facts that everyone agrees on are objectively true, it can also show that other things are objectively true that not all people agree on. Some examples of this actually happening are black holes and tectonic drift.

Its an oxymoron to say that people disagree on objective scientific facts/truth. If they are facts/truth then there’s no way to disagree because they have been verified. If they disagree then they must be basing this on a subjective view.

Again, you are assuming that there is an objective WHY. There is not.

If you are talking about morality there has to be a why (ought), there is no choice in the matter. Otherwise you are not talking about morality but 'likes' and 'dislikes' , opinions or feelings.

As for why it is good that we don't harm society, the simple fact is that the universe really doesn't care. Humanity will be around for the merest blink of the history of the universe.

So therefore what you are talking about and explaining is not about morality. But the problem is you keep talking like its about morality. You keeping talking like there is a why (ought).

The only ones who actually care about humanity are us, and that makes it a subjective issue.

Actually it makes it an objective one because we all know there are moral truths in the universe. The fact we 'Care' is the key. If there are no moral values in the universe then why care about anything happening beyond us in the world we live in morally. If subjective morality is nothing more than our likes and dislikes then what has care got to do with things.

Care implies there is something to care about and therefore what we care about has to be objective. Otherwise it doesn’t matter as caring would be nothing more than a preference for something or something to happen. I prefer that people don't get hurt but that doesn’t mean anything objective.

So it doesn’t really matter you may prefer and others may prefer not, you may like it if people care but others will dislike like it and not care. There is no moral duty or obligation to care under subjective morality. Yet people do care like it matters beyond their subjective self. Like it matters in the universe.

 

[Kylie]

We understand your claim but you have not yet argued as to its validity.

If the preponderance of evidence and reason is in agreement and none in contradiction and those who are competent to judge agree then one person can tell another what he ought or ought not to affirm as true. Agree?

If you agree then explain why the claim that the earth is spherical is objectively true and that the immorality of rape as defined is not.

I can provide evidence that is external to myself to show the truth of the claim that the Earth is spherical. Anyone can investigate it, they can get the results for themselves, they can point out where I have made mathematical errors in my own study.

The same can not be done for the claim that rape is wrong, nor any other moral claim.

? Of course it is.

No it is not.

Darwin didn't say, "Okay, let's assume that evolution is true. What can I do to prove it?"

Objective facts are not found by assuming that something is factual and then trying to find a way to make it objective.

I posted two arguments in support -- an empirical and rational argument and have asked you multiple time to show the logical error in either argument. You have chosen not to respond.

Would you care to refresh my memory?

Nope. Properly understood, the morality of the human act in the concrete is objectively good or evil. The culpability of any particular actor is subjective.

Hold on there. All you're saying here is, "If you really understood it, you'd see that morality is objective. Therefore, morality is objective." It doesn't work that way.

 

[Kylie]

? The only ones who care that the earth is spherical are us so "that makes it a subjective issue."

Except for the fact that reality doesn't work the way we see it work if the Earth isn't a sphere (such as the orbit of the moon, and a whole bunch of other things), so that argument fails.

 

[Kylie]

Just checking what about that we can show objective morality with extreme examples are you saying this is irrelevant as well.

No, I'm saying that if morality really was objective, you wouldn't need to use extreme examples to illustrate your claims.

Its an oxymoron to say that people disagree on objective scientific facts/truth. If they are facts/truth then there’s no way to disagree because they have been verified. If they disagree then they must be basing this on a subjective view.

You missed my point. People disagreed on those issues. Scientific evidence was presented, and then the disagreement was resolved.

If you are talking about morality there has to be a why (ought), there is no choice in the matter. Otherwise you are not talking about morality but 'likes' and 'dislikes' , opinions or feelings.

If morality is subjective, then it would be a subset of those opinions, wouldn't it?

So therefore what you are talking about and explaining is not about morality. But the problem is you keep talking like its about morality. You keeping talking like there is a why (ought).

Why isn't it morality?

Actually it makes it an objective one because we all know there are moral truths in the universe.

Nah, you don't get to prove your point just by saying, "But everyone knows it." That's not how it works.

 

[Bradskii]

Better and worse compared to what.

But it doesn't change the fact that potentially it’s a case of moral right or wrong even if that moral wrong is less horrible than the other. If it is found that the wife was OK with her husband having sex with her while asleep then there’s no moral wrong. If it is found that she was not OK then it’s a moral wrong.

One is better than the other. Show me one of anything and that is then the standard by which I will judge the next. Give me two beers and I might say the second one is better. Who on earth is going to then say 'better than what?' Better than the first. Obviously.

And as regards degrees of moral wrong, you said: 'I don't think there are degrees of wrongness.' So a woman gang raped is equally as bad as a man having sex with his sleeping wife? Bulldust.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, you haven't caught up yet on your reading in this thread. We've succinctly defined rape to be the non-statutory, non-consensual and the non-spousal violation of an innocent person's bodily integrity.

You don't get to define terms to suit your argument. Current laws in these parts define it as 'sexual intercourse without consent' But that said, let's change it to a non married couple. Now which is worse - a drunken couple where one of them is asleep or the gang rape of a young woman?

 

[partinobodycular]

Like our debate, as soon as you choose to reply to my post with an arguement for subjective morality and I decide to reply you assume that certain moral duties must be present in our debate. You assume that I ought to not misrepresent your argument and lie and refute them or use logical fallacies. You are prescribing moral duties such as these and believe they should be kept and abided by.

Sometimes I can be a little slow, but it suddenly dawned on me that you've simply proved that I'm right.

Back in post #654 I stated the following:

There's one thing who's decisions concerning "Good" and "Bad" are always objective... evolution. Probably because evolution doesn't really concern itself with such subjective terms as "good" and "bad". As far as survival of the fittest is concerned, if you survive you're good, and if you don't you're bad.

There's something called convergent evolution. It's the idea that evolution will tend toward certain designs because they're the most efficient. Like having two eyes instead of one or three. In other words, it's objectively true that having two eyes is generally more efficient than other potential options.

As you've pointed out, the same objective standard holds true for debates. The most efficient manner in which to have a productive debate is for all parties to be honest and truthful.

Therefore, all that you've done is mistaken evolutionary efficiency for morality. It's evolution that's decided that when it comes to debates it's "morally good" to be honest and truthful.

So it seems that you've simply proved that I'm right. It's ultimately evolution that decides what's "good" and what's "bad". We may have our own subjective ideas on the matter, but it's evolution that makes the final decision.

Honesty and truthfulness are morally good, only because evolution says they are.

 

[stevevw]

One is better than the other. Show me one of anything and that is then the standard by which I will judge the next. Give me two beers and I might say the second one is better. Who on earth is going to then say 'better than what?' Better than the first. Obviously.

Ok then thats all about subjective preferences and nothing to do with morality.

And as regards degrees of moral wrong, you said: 'I don't think there are degrees of wrongness.' So a woman gang raped is equally as bad as a man having sex with his sleeping wife? Bulldust.

Ok I agree when we compare those two acts one is worse than the other.

But the main point is if both acts are morally wrong then what is the measure that these acts are wrong in the first place. If morality is subjective then they are just different acts and that’s it. There’s no better or worse act.

So any scale of comparing those acts as better or worse is not available to measure better or worse. Like you beer example it’s a subjective taste thing, an opinion that the subject makes. Some may say that having sex with a sleeping wife is worse or another person may say neither is bad.

These are just subjective opinions and they all count as valid opinions because under subjectivity there is no degree of wrongness in fact there is no moral wrongness at all, just opinions.

 

[stevevw]

Sometimes I can be a little slow, but it suddenly dawned on me that you've simply proved that I'm right.

Back in post #654 I stated the following:
partinobodycular said: ↑
There's one thing who's decisions concerning "Good" and "Bad" are always objective... evolution. Probably because evolution doesn't really concern itself with such subjective terms as "good" and "bad". As far as survival of the fittest is concerned, if you survive you're good, and if you don't you're bad.

There's something called convergent evolution. It's the idea that evolution will tend toward certain designs because they're the most efficient. Like having two eyes instead of one or three. In other words, it's objectively true that having two eyes is generally more efficient than other potential options.

As you've pointed out, the same objective standard holds true for debates. The most efficient manner in which to have a productive debate is for all parties to be honest and truthful.

Therefore, all that you've done is mistaken evolutionary efficiency for morality. It's evolution that's decided that when it comes to debates it's "morally good" to be honest and truthful.

So it seems that you've simply proved that I'm right. It's ultimately evolution that decides what's "good" and what's "bad". We may have our own subjective ideas on the matter, but it's evolution that makes the final decision.

Honesty and truthfulness are morally good, only because evolution says they are.

I was just thinking you have supported my argument as well lol.

But the difference is evolutionary survival is not about moral good or bad. It’s just about survival. It just describes how morals may have come about by evolution. It doesn’t tell us why something is morally good or bad.

So something morally bad can be regarded as 'good' in an evolutionary sense if it helps a species survive. So there may come a time when its evolutionary 'good' to rape women to ensure the human species replenishes and survives or be dishonest and not tell the truth so that we decieve old people so that they can be put to death because theres not enough resources for everyone to survive.

So when you say evolution says 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are morally good evolution cannot say anything about what is morally good because it only describes things. It doesn’t tell us why 'Honesty' and 'Truth' are morally good. Someone may explain that evolution created 'Honesty' and 'Truth' to help make human interactions more efficient which helps humans get along and survive.

But then we can ask why is efficient human interactions, human cooperation and human survival a good thing. Its just a subjective determination and anything can be rationalized as good for survival sake. There is no basis for saying anything evolution determines as good is actually morally good.

But 'Honesty' and 'Truth' along with other morals like Fairness, Justice, Respect etc. are morals in themselves because that have value and duties attached to them which gives them the 'ought' value that morality requires. We don't need to use evolution to explain these moral values because they are self-evident and self-explained.

Morality can only be applied by humans because moral duties can only be towards humans. Evolution cannot determine or decide anything because it doesnt have any agency its just a natural process. Your giving evolution an ability it just hasn't got. Its like the wheather. The weather cannot decide good or bad, its just a natural process.

 

[partinobodycular]

But the difference is evolutionary survival is not about moral good or bad. It’s just about survival. It just describes how morals may have come about by evolution. It doesn’t tell us why something is morally good or bad.

It's true, evolution doesn't really distinguish between good and bad, other than to categorize things according to their survivability. If it survives it's good and if it doesn't it's bad. It's we humans who then apply the terms "morally good" or "morally bad" as if there's some higher standard to which we can appeal to justify those terms. But the standard to which we're appealing is simply our past, and what has proven over time to be most beneficial to our survival. Societies survive because they're more efficient than the alternatives, and the sense of morality survives because it's the most efficient way to build societies. But there's nothing intrinsically good or bad about things, it's just that "morality" is a way for us to understand intuitively what's most beneficial for us as a society. Our sense of morality has evolved because it helps us survive. It gets us to do what our lesser animal instincts wouldn't or couldn't compel us to do.

It's our innate morality that distinguishes us from other animals, but its origins are just as mundane and natural as the color of our eyes and the number of our toes.

So if you're looking for a source for morality, it's evolution.

Evolution cannot determine or decide anything because it doesnt have any agency its just a natural process. Your giving evolution an ability it just hasn't got.

Indeed, evolution is just a natural process. One which we in our efforts to explain have invoked the divine. We've created God to fill in the gaps of our ignorance, and for that we may well owe Him a debt of gratitude. There may never come a time when we can completely abandon Him, but if He exists, then we should strive to understand Him and not simply invoke Him to mask our ignorance.

 

[o_mlly]

I can provide evidence that is external to myself to show the truth of the claim that the Earth is spherical. Anyone can investigate it, they can get the results for themselves, they can point out where I have made mathematical errors in my own study.

The same can not be done for the claim that rape is wrong, nor any other moral claim.

Unless you hold that causing unnecessary suffering to innocent humans is moral then show the errors in the manifold scientific studies that evidence the suffering experienced by rape victims to be substantial. Here's just one:
Mental Health Impact of Rape

As a naturalist, do you believe the morals we subjectively profess are arbitrary? That is, if randomness is at the root of our genetic makeup then, as Darwin taught, but for the roll of the dice we could and would be quite different.

Darwin didn't say, "Okay, let's assume that evolution is true. What can I do to prove it?"

Objective facts are not found by assuming that something is factual and then trying to find a way to make it objective.

? Darwin did (and all other scientist do) exactly that. Isn't a bit naive to think that anyone would apply scarce time, talent and treasure to evidence a hypothesis that they thought was not true?

Hold on there. All you're saying here is, "If you really understood it, you'd see that morality is objective. Therefore, morality is objective." It doesn't work that way.

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote the human act in the concrete is objectively moral or immoral. Big difference.

Post #625 (for the fourth time, I think?).

What determines whether a claim is fundamentally fact or not? I think the difference is a factual claim has an attendant argument in support.

Examine the claim: Rape is objectively an immoral act.

If the argument begins with an experiential premise then one might cite the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate the manifold dysfunctional outcomes experienced by those who have been raped justifying labeling them as victims. The argument based on a posterior premise is an empirical fact and concludes to the fact that rape is objectively immoral.

If the argument begins with an a priori premise then one might propose that innately we know that an innocent person's has a right to their bodily integrity. (Note that the source for this first premise is not argued to be in God's design of human nature or acquired via evolution only that it is a fact.) The argument based on innate knowledge is a rational argument that concludes to the same fact, ie., rape is objectively immoral.

If something is a fact, then it would have to be independent of any observers. The speed of light, for example is a fact because no matter who measures it, it's the same.

Looks like you found it after all but failed to address the arguments.

If the speed of light is measurable then someone observed something. All facts are dependent (not independent) of an observer. If all observers competent to observe, observe the same thing then the thing is probably true. Just like the speed of light is probably objectively true so the claim "rape is immoral" is probably objectively true.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't get to define terms to suit your argument. Current laws in these parts define it as 'sexual intercourse without consent' But that said, let's change it to a non married couple. Now which is worse - a drunken couple where one of them is asleep or the gang rape of a young woman?

You still need to review the thread a bit more. The claim that all morality is subjective is proven false if just one human act can be shown to be objectively immoral. So, yes -- I do get to define that act.

 

[o_mlly]

Except for the fact that reality doesn't work the way we see it work if the Earth isn't a sphere (such as the orbit of the moon, and a whole bunch of other things), so that argument fails.

The post was not to refute the spherical shape of the earth but rather your claim that "caring" makes it so.

 

[Kylie]

Unless you hold that causing unnecessary suffering to innocent humans is moral then show the errors in the manifold scientific studies that evidence the suffering experienced by rape victims to be substantial. Here's just one:
Mental Health Impact of Rape

As a naturalist, do you believe the morals we subjectively profess are arbitrary? That is, if randomness is at the root of our genetic makeup then, as Darwin taught, but for the roll of the dice we could and would be quite different.


? Darwin did (and all other scientist do) exactly that. Isn't a bit naive to think that anyone would apply scarce time, talent and treasure to evidence a hypothesis that they thought was not true?



No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote the human act in the concrete is objectively moral or immoral. Big difference.

Post #625 (for the fourth time, I think?).

What determines whether a claim is fundamentally fact or not? I think the difference is a factual claim has an attendant argument in support.

Examine the claim: Rape is objectively an immoral act.

If the argument begins with an experiential premise then one might cite the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate the manifold dysfunctional outcomes experienced by those who have been raped justifying labeling them as victims. The argument based on a posterior premise is an empirical fact and concludes to the fact that rape is objectively immoral.

If the argument begins with an a priori premise then one might propose that innately we know that an innocent person's has a right to their bodily integrity. (Note that the source for this first premise is not argued to be in God's design of human nature or acquired via evolution only that it is a fact.) The argument based on innate knowledge is a rational argument that concludes to the same fact, ie., rape is objectively immoral.


Looks like you found it after all but failed to address the arguments.

If the speed of light is measurable then someone observed something. All facts are dependent (not independent) of an observer. If all observers competent to observe, observe the same thing then the thing is probably true. Just like the speed of light is probably objectively true so the claim "rape is immoral" is probably objectively true.

Okay, let me ask you a question.

If morality is objective as you claim, then by what measure do we determine if one thing is more or less moral than another thing? How do we determine the moral value of something? If it's objective as you say, then this should be easy for you to answer.

 

[Ken-1122]

But thats the point. Why should I or anyone abide by those moral duties if morality is subjective because that is only an opinion or view. So in order for us to have a coherent debate that can find the truth we both have to treat 'Honesty' and the truth' as objective, beyond anyones subjective opinions otherwise we can have no debate seeking the truth of a matter.

So you admit; truth and honest can be ignored? Anything that is objective cannot be ignored by sentient beings. The tree on my front lawn can’t be ignored; it’s existence is objective. It doesn’t matter if your are blind, a beast of the field, a bird in the air if you stand next to my tree, you will be unable to see the sky, if you walk across my lawn, you will be forced to walk around my tree because it's existence is based outside of human or any sentient being's thought. In order for morality to be objective, the same will apply; it has to be recognized by all sentient beings; be it animals, the sociopath, or anyone just in denial; everyone and everything will be forced to acknowledge. If rape (for example) were objectively immoral, this would be as obvious to the sociopath as it would be to the most righteous among us. If truth and honesty were objective, it would be impossible to ignore the immorality of dishonesty, and untruth, because it would be based outside of human thought.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok I agree when we compare those two acts one is worse than the other.

So we agree that it's always context dependent.

But the main point is if both acts are morally wrong then what is the measure that these acts are wrong in the first place. If morality is subjective then they are just different acts and that’s it.

Let's simplify it. There are an infinite number of reasons why someone might lie. So whether one considers it wrong will be context dependent. From a little white lie to prevent someone's feeling being hurt or to save a life to cheating on a loved one. What you are now saying is that every single example from an infinite set of lies will be either objectively wrong or objectively acceptable. At at one single point it will change from one to the other.

Needless to say, I find that nonsensical.

Arguing for objective morality is arguing for a black and white world where things are either right or wrong. And what gets me is that it's those who are religious claim the right to make that distinction.

 

[Bradskii]

You still need to review the thread a bit more. The claim that all morality is subjective is proven false if just one human act can be shown to be objectively immoral. So, yes -- I do get to define that act.

All you have done is try to find an act that we all would consider immoral. And then claim that it's objectively wrong.

If rape is objectively wrong then why the need to define it as 'non spousal'? Are you suggesting that it's context specific?