The Morality of Retarded Suicide Bombers

Two mentally retarded women were fitted with bomb vests and sent to a crowded pet market milling with families and children. The bombs were remotely triggered.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945797/

I wonder if there is a bottom somewhere that we can all agree on, an absolute of sorts. I was totally nauseated by the use of these women, who could not consent. I was nauseated at the place of the attack. After a while, you want the world to scream in outrage and I hear too few of those screams.

I would be happy to agree that one's free consent is foundational to morality. Unfortunately, this is very much a minority view it would seem, with most claiming that consent is objectively a fiction as is morality. Even people of faith use expresssions that subjectivize their moral code-- "it is true to me" or "Jesus is in my heart". The free will presumption clarifies what is moral and immoral. Consider for example your most cherished conviction, perhaps your faith in God. Let us say that someone abducted the person who you most love, say a child or parent, and said that they would murder that person unless you renounced your faith. Would you do so? The Kantian moralist would say: no, you are obligated to always tell the truth irrespective of consequences. As much as I admire the categorical imperative, here Kant is wrong in my view. Why? Kant is wrong because the predicate to morality has been violated, namely one's unconstrained capacity to be immoral or moral. In the absence of freedom of choice or consent, there is a state of amorality. Given that, you are obligated in this case to lie to achieve a higher moral good, namely, the life of your loved one.