I don't think there is anything in modern morality that is "outside the mind".

Perhaps if I saw somebody struck by lightning out of a blue sky for doing something immoral, then there would be proof of an objective morality.

Sure there are, things like degeneracy and the negative effect it has on those people and their society.

Why must the consequences be immediate and obvious?

An agreed upon set of ethics and decisions on what is more right won't sway me. I think there is justification for morality, but no true morality that presides above the rest.

‘degeneracy’ is one of the most subjective things out there

It's like, what is the difference between righteous anger, and indignation to you?

Not really. If you believe in degeneracy, it becomes pretty obvious what are degenerate acts, naturally there will be edge cases as there are in everything.

When does killing become murder?

When does indulgence become degenerate?

Murder is easily defined. Premeditated and unjustified killing

Who decides what is Just when it comes to killing?

Ideally it shouldn't be a "who". There should be some standard which determines what is justification

But that's not how the Courts work.

Because humans aren't capable of attaining perfect objectivity

Should we do away with the courts and have a paper run them instead?

What?

Who would write this Mystical document that would enforce right and wrong and not be subjected to any interpretation?

How would that be enforced?

What would enforce it?

This has nothing to do with the morality and justification of a thing, you are asking questions of application

And I never mentioned a document

I'm asking how is there a definite morality.

No you weren't

Yes, I was.

If there is an objective morality, what is it?

You asked about a document that would enforce the morality. Not how morality is definite

Holy, sweet Lord, give me strength.

A document would be the application of the morality

I asked those questions because you said it should not be a "who" that decides what is Just

Which implies it should be a what.

A paper is written by a who

Then, pray thee tell, do you suggest be proof of this objective morality?

That is a philosophical question

No, it is a question that directly relates to your *opinion* that there is an objective morality.

That there is one morality that presides all others.

And takes precedence.

I'm asking what it is, and how is it free from interpretation?

We should be able to logically deduce the objective morality, which is a question of philosophy.

Unfortunately, humans are not perfectly logical creatures. We cannot achieve perfect objectivity in our moral systems.

Morality is not logical as there is no system to validate what is moral, and immoral.

I already provided two: natural rights and evolutionary psychology

So, morality is a human concept, and as such you have argued against yourself in saying that humanity can never reach an objective morality, meaning it does not exist.

When did I say that?

Hmmm, "We cannot achieve perfect objectivity in our moral systems."

Because "humans are not perfectly logical creatures."

I already addressed this too, objective morality is the foundation for our moral systems

There is no objective morality.

There are no facts of it.

Nothing that proves it is.

There is only your opinion.

I have given standards to validate it

You dodged all my questions on the subjects of what is more right, and how it righteousness is dictated.

When did I dodge them? What were they?

What are natural rights?

And "evolutionary psychology" is just genetic memory.

So genetics are partly to determine what is moral?

To what extent?

And if that is so, not all humans are genetically identical, with so much variation, how is that a proper determinant?

Natural rights is the philosophical concept of the state of nature for an individual to be truly free from outside compulsion and force.

Then it's an opinion.

A concept.

Genral relgion based on race, muslims have no parted morals, there is not straight guideline 'rules' to morals

religion*

general*

Natural rights are a concept. That isn't the basis for morality though, it is a standard to check it too.

Then what *is* the objective morality?

Where does it exist?

How does it exist?

I'm not debating what it is, just that it is objective

You have to define things to debate

None of which you have done.

You haven't told me how it exists, why it exists, when it came to exist, where it exists, what it exists as.

Only said it does

Which is faith.

Which apparently is an opinion m

Wtf? Most of those questions don't apply to morality at all

And opinions are not facts.

The relate to the existence of this "objective" morality.

Whatever that is.

And that is what we are talking about, not morality itself.

But the existence of an objective reality.

That was the question

What? Are you treating morality as an object?

Is morality objective, or subjective?

You said objective, so that means it exists.

Which means there is a way to validate the facts surrounding it.

A concept can not be objective.

Yeah things can exist without a where or why or "what it exists as"

I am not arguing against it, I'm asking how it is, and what it is.

Where does the speed of light exist?

In the speed of light.

That's not a where

It exists in light.

No it doesn't

The speed of light has nothing to do with light itself

So the speed of light does not exist in the speed of light?

Then it's just a number.

A concept.

It is a characteristic of the fabric of spacetime