There is no such thing as ethically good and bad in the objective sense. Nature/reality knows no morality. Nature has it's own rules that it lives by, and those rules are not similar to our artificial rules(morals).
Reality does not care if someone rapes, as long as you don't break reality's rule of avoiding sex with people with a disease. Reality does not care if someone gets murdered. Ask yourself, where do the consequences come from when a person rapes or kills another person? The consequences come from humanity, and nothing else. If rape and murder were legal, we would have a bunch of rapists(who didn't rape a woman with a STD) and murderers walking around without anything to worry about. They may have to worry about backlash from the loved-ones of their victims, but if that's not the case, they literally have nothing to worry about.
And history proves my claim. There was a time when slavery was accepted and legal. Today, many people think it is immoral, or "bad", but reality didn't see it that way. People went hundreds of years enslaving people without having to deal with any consequences from nature. Slave-owners only had to worry about other humans(usually slaves), when it came to enslaving people.
So yes. In reality, raping a woman is just as good, or bad, as healing her.
With that said, I would promote a different approach to life. I prefer for women to be treated with respect, as well as men. Violence rarely helps humanity as a whole. It is only counterproductive to our happiness and well-being. But people would be better off if they got rid of this unrealistic belief in morality(or right and wrong) and instead approached the world in a much more reasonable way.
I mean, people still think homosexuality is "wrong" or immoral. But this is not true in reality. If it was truly wrong, or unnatural, reality would punish those who engage in homosexuality every single time. But it doesn't. Reality prefers to punish a person who got stabbed or someone who jumped off of a building. And this is because those people, broke one of reality's many rules.
--If objective morality exists, I would really appreciate it if someone could prove it to me. I'm open to any other opinion as long as it is reasonable.
I think its ridiculous. No one wants to be in pain so there are rules against hurting each other. Pain is a real physical things that sucks big time for everybody. You wouldnt want to be hurt so how can you justify hurting someone else when they havent hurt anybody just for pleasure or wealth? Everybody in the world sees pleasure and thinks its good while they see pain and all think its bad. They are physical things and not made up. You think people are naturally selfish? Well the selfish thing to do would be to have rules you abide by and expect others to abide by so life can be more fair. If we all steal, kill, and destroy then none of us are going to be able to enjoy the comfort and pleasure we enjoy with rules. Unhappiness is a physical condition and is not made up. Fairness is objective and is not made up. So if you dont want to be hurt and want an equal chance to find happiness then it would be beneficial to live in a place where there are rules based on fairness and with the goal of promoting happiness or preventing pain suffering and misery which could only be the same thing as preventing pain suffering and misery will enable people to be happy. As long as your happiness doesnt come at the expense of others then i say go for it.
Morality may not be objective, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. Subjective morality is based on the situation and the effects it has on people/things.
Rape would hurt another person, which is why we don't do it. Anything that hurts other people is something we don't want, especially since it could end up hurting you (end up in jail, hated by everyone, etc.)
Same thing with lying, murder, even just hating someone. It hurts others and could easily hurt yourself, so it isn't good.
Doing things that only help you is just selfish, not the basis for morality.
What we determine as "good" or "bad" is how it effects us.
It is "bad" to rape a woman because the cons outweigh the pros, and play a more significant role on the impact. She is incredibly mentally and physically hurt in several ways, there are many long-term lasting negative effects, and her family is scared and hurt and worried for her.
Healing a woman is "good" because it makes her happy, it makes her healthy, it makes her family happy that she's of good health.
Neither of these are objectively good or bad, or objectively moral/immoral. There is no definitive, set-in-stone "law" stating what is and isn't moral/immoral. We come to our own conclusions. No matter how much something hurts us, or even humanity as a whole, there is nothing SAYING that is wrong, other than our interpretation of how it effects us.
The only thing that would be somewhat "right" about what you're saying is that there is nothing enforcing that raping a woman and healing a woman are moral/immoral, so in that sense, they're neutral. But they aren't neutral because we understand how horrible rape is, and how good health is.
If there is no objective morality then religion will be absolutely pointless. Because what is good and bad has a long history with religion. Not science, and most definitely not philosophy. Our morality came from the whole concept of Believes/religions. And I'm not about to get into that.
But science will support this idea very heavily. Why? When it comes to things like morality, and what is good vs what is bad. Science is very weak on these subjects. Because those are things that we feel must be so. Things we don't need evidence to understand how it works. We just feel it most of the time.
As for philosophy. Philosophy is very good in these field, but just as bad. Because philosophy is playing with words. The smartest mind can easily get away with murder and any type of crime. As this have actually happen many times in history.
The last field that is somewhat reliable in terms of conclusion of an actual morality truth is Religion. I use the word "Actual" because that premise still exist even today. And it is the most event in human history that has the most impact on our life. I consider actual because even some of our laws are coming from religion.
Religion has a fix knowledge that all can come to know. Where the concept of God plays a very Valuable roles. Because no man have seen God. It lead to infinite search of conclusion for those that want to use philosophy to escape crime or science. Though it is not impossible. However when God say killing is bad, all must agree. Since this phenomenal being is seeing as far surpass our knowledge of understanding. Challenging this system can be very difficult.
Our society has developed in order for us not to kill each other. But this has no base in God, it was just logical that this would happen. If it had benefits for human race to kill others frequently, we might see it as our moral code, make rituals for it, or just teach in schools to kill each other. The presented argument over which this debate is constructed makes no sense, as it takes a thing on the same level of subjectivity and treats it out of context it would require to work.
You do realize the reason that we don't consider raping a woman the same or just as good as healing her is because it is counterproductive and therefor we consider it to be "bad"? Yes there will be some people who want or feel the need to rape but if you look at it in a societal way, this action is harmful to the female, is completely unnecessary and it's goes against what we've defined human rights and consent to be . Healing a person not only makes our own conciseness feel well, it helps her by bringing her back to full health and it actually benefits society to help our fellow man.
To say that raping a woman is just as good as healing her because there is no objective morality is laughable and foolish. No objective morality does not mean abandonment of empathy nor does it imply that all crimes dictated are "good and should be allowed.