As I said before, I realize rape is wrong, but that’s forced rape; the point I originally made was a scenario where its statuary rape in one state but not in another. Not everything that falls under the category of rape is wrong according to science.
I posted the scientific support for the harm caused by statuary rape earlier. The fact is this is about a young person who is not ready for a sexual relationship and does not realize the full implications of what they are getting into. An adult can easily take advantage of a young person because they are nieve. The consequences can be varied from young people suffering low self-esteem, mental illness such as depression, suicide, underage pregnancy and all the problems associated with that such as not being able to work, poverty, poor education, STD's, physical pain because young girls are not fully developed, and the risk of abuse because young people are more vulnerable.
What Are the Risks of Statutory Rape?
Statutory Rape
Becuase the harm from statuary rape has been proven then the states that do not have laws for this and disagree its a problem are wrong. People have the right to have their own view about something but if it can be objectively shown that something is wrong then their view can also be shown to be objectively wrong. In this case, statuary rape can be scientifically shown to be harmful to young people which are an objective position because science is outside the human view and independently verified.
My moral opinion applies to myself as well as all others who agree with me; and the same can be said of what you call objective morality.
Yes, but there will be a certain amount of people who agree with you and there will be a certain amount who disagree with another view and then another group who will have a different view again and so on. Even if there are just one or two people who have a different view, in the end, they still have the right to have their view and voice it under subjective morality.
Just because you have many people agreeing on something is right under subjective morality as we have seen with some of the wrong decisions made by governments and organisations like NATO doesn't mean they are ultimately right. Under subjective morality, there is no way of telling who is really right or wrong because there is no ultimate moral standard to go by that is outside and independent of human moral views. But with objective morality, the claim is there is a moral standard outside human views that will be morally good despite the many different human views.
Who decides they are ultimately wrong? You? Because I decide those who disagree with me are ultimately wrong.
Under subjective morality when you decide something is wrong it is not ultimately wrong as in being truly wrong outside of you or your view. It only means the other people are wrong just for you and it stops with you. You cant say to the other person that they need to change their view to yours because you know that you are right for everyone else.
With my subjective opinion, there is an ultimate measure of right and wrong; my opinion! And my opinion carries as much weight as what your so-called objective moral guide carries. If you disagree, prove me wrong.
It can be proven in that as you said you view is only applied to you whereas an objective moral view is outside humans and not subject dependent. It is not influenced by human opinion and stands independent of human opinion. If it can be established as being independently true or fact then it will show that despite you thinking your opinion is right it will be wrong in the light of the independently established moral. As mentioned the best way to establish an independent moral act is to use scientific reasoning and logic showing the harm to human well-being that the moral act causes because science is independent of human opinion.
When you look at moral issues like abortion, gay marriage, nuclear weapons, or birth control, there is no clear objective standard like you speak of. All you have is your opinion, and you speak of it as if it is objective.
The same will apply to your so-called objective morality. Yeah, you can say “well they’re just wrong” but I can say that too!
When I use science to prove an act causes harm to someone's wellbeing this is not my opinion but an independent position from scientific research. Just like I mentioned earlier about it being scientific fact that water needs heat to boil despite someones personal view that ice can make water boil. So when someone says in their personal view that the act of rape is morally good it is the science that shows independently that the act of rape is morally bad because it brings harm to a women's wellbeing. Wellbeing is something that we all know is important for human happiness and survival and cannot be disputed because it is scientifically verified.
What scientific theory addresses the right vs wrong of abortion, gay marriage, or nuclear weapons during war?
It is the many areas of science such as psychology, human behaviour, neurology, medicine, etc that will have research papers on the effects and consequences of certain acts and behaviours. These have been scientifically verified just like the laws of physics, etc.