You seem to be completely unable to grasp the concept of arguing from a hypothetical despite doing it yourself, delightful. I am agnostic to the possibility of an objective morality, but if it does exist it could be argued from a basis of harm. Even if arguing from a basis of harm is subjective then I can say subjectively that rape is wrong and cannot conceive of a situation where rape would be right.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but jumping between stances would give me the impression that you want a foot in both sides to be honest.
If you claim that rape is objectively wrong (wrong regardless of human opinion) then sorry to break it to you but you are not a moral relativist.
I believe that moral relativism is self defeating and dangerous - here is why...
As crinkleshoes eluded to in a previous post...
"Say for example all women suddenly decided to abstain from intercourse and the human race was dwindling... The only way to continue our species would be to rape... Would it continue to be wrong or immoral? No."
Your suggestion all along has been to base objective morality on limiting harm done or the flourishing of the species.
In this scenario that crinkleshoes mentions what way do you go? On one hand you would claim that rape is wrong, but on the other hand the basis for morality is continuing the species so what happens?
But we are also a society of thinking empathic animals which seems to make us somewhat unique, so therefore we may well indeed have moral obligations but it would be up to the individual in how they choose to meet them. Which would be identical to a God given situation.
Perhaps we are unique but that doesn't give us moral worth. If we don't have moral obligations why should we comply? Of course we don't have to comply but that isn't the question.
Limiting harm done may be very praiseworthy but what obligates me to do it?
The part that I quoted??
Objective morality is entirely human based due to the nature of humanity. You already accept that in that you do not think animals have a moral duty not to rape. So therefore morality is intrinsically related to humanity and that actions must be considered with that in mind.
Exactly, so if we do actually have moral worth and obligation where does it come from? Atheism says we have no importance or obligations are we are just animals.
On atheism our perception of purpose must therefore be illusory.
Because we are human? I am sure to a mouse the flourishing of mice is more important, but there is an important distinction, mice are not empathic social animals and so they would, if they could even consider the concept, only really be interested in the flourishing of their offspring. Human beings realise that the best chance for our offspring to flourish is for human society to flourish.
Sure, it might be beneficial but on what basis is flourishing objectively good/right?
More than likely, as no one has yet managed to come up with a more plausible method for humans to have developed.
I'm talking here about the evolution of morality not the evolution of humans.
Has morality has evolved due to a scientific process, which in itself is morally neutral? Don't get that I'm afraid.
Because unlike other animals we seem to be the only ones that are empathic and social and capable of communicating those traits and more importantly debating those traits. So yes, humans are quite unique as far as species found on earth so far.
Of course we are unique and I accept that, however being unique doesn't make us any more important. Being unique does obligate me in any way to do good things.
And you are going back to not answering questions directed at you, why should I continue to engage if you refuse to reciprocate?
In short though (because you were remarkably brief in explaining your subjective views on why homosexuality is wrong and have been completely unable to explain why objectively it is wrong) I have no issues with homosexuality because it does not harm the ability of the species to flourish, more than enough people are able to reproduce to continue society. In addition the harm done in forcing people to either deny, repress or ignore their sexuality is quite large on an individual scale.
If everyone was gay it wouldn't really do much for the continuation of the species. How you or I interpret morality is again the subject of moral epistemology and is completely separate from the question of moral ontology.
So if God doesn't exist how would it change the way you live your live? What would you do that you do not do now?
If God doesn't exist then we are just monkey like creatures with a false sense of importance. If God doesn't exist then I don't believe that objective moral values and duties exist.