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.