[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.
</font>

Please expound on this, because it doesn't make sense to me if you flip it around.

If person A does a good deed out of no other reason than wanting to help someone, and person B does a good deed mainly because of some perceived gain, does this not make person A morally superior to person B?

I fail to see how an act based on fear of personal repurcussions can ever be morally superior to an act based on one's own rationality.

How can those who believe in God and base their actions mainly out of fear for their perceived repurcussions of non-belief, be morally superior to those who simply base their actions on what is rational to them?

[Edit:] Hold off. Many flaws above. I wrote too hastily. But perhaps you can see what I'm getting at anyway.