subjective ethics: a scientifically verifiable fact?

[Pompey]

Divine Insight writes:

Right and wrong is entirely a subjective human judgement. Period.

If humans didn't mind being raped then no human would think that rape is wrong.

What is it going to take before you understand this simple "Scientifically verifiable fact"?

This is not a question of whether you think morality is objective or subjective, but rather that subjective morality is a scientifically verifiable fact, and the claim that this is a question of science and not philosophy.

I find this claim very bold and cannot find any kind of concrete data that supports this. Thus far DI and I have just been going back and forth with each other, but I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

Is ethics a scientific category? Is subjective morality a scientifically verifiable fact? If it is, please supply the data from the scientific community that verifies this.

[Bust Nak]

The OP seems to be about whether or not meta-ethical relativism (i.e. nobody is objectively right or wrong) is a scientifically verifiable fact.

That's what I am saying, as opposed to whether or not normative statements such as "murder is wrong" is a scientifically verifiable fact.

For context, this was what I was replying to:
"But it [no objective moral systems are true/correct] isn't confirmed by science. What's confirmed by "people have tended to change their moral values over time" is that "people have tended to change their moral values over time".

The issues relating to the truth of many objective moral systems are analytical and logical issues, not scientific ones. There may be individual objective moral systems where science is useful, and science is no doubt useful in determining the truth of some normative statements given moral axioms, but the actual issue isn't resolved by experimentation."

I don't think there's any question (outside of religious discussion) as to whether it's a fact that people hold (and have held) different views (descriptive ethical relativism).

Sure, no arguments there.