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?