Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.

Theft, whether by a Government or a Ganagsta, is WRONG. Period.
Murder, whether by a Policeman or a Pimp, is WRONG. Period.
Fraud, whether by the IRS or Miss Cleo, is WRONG. Period.
Slavery, whether perpetrated by the Dept. of Treasury or some thug in Sudan, is WRONG. Period.

If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.

Murder is WRONG/IMMORAL: Self-defense is RIGHT/MORAL
Theft is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Fraud is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Rape is WRONG/IMMORAL.

If a person emerges in society who sees the above things as permissable, and they act upon this ( Murder/rape/rob/defraud someone ) then they must be REMOVED from society: Preferably by their intended victims. If their intended victims don't do the job at the time of the attempted Tresspass, then it is the task of the State to remove the offender from Society.
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
For nonviolent robberies and frauds, the best solution is imprisonment. Such a crime does not merit the loss of life, but certainly the loss of Freedom.