-Moral Standard In All of Humanity-

Yes, that is all we can do.Now the question posed/implied in the OP is what standard do we use to deduce the "right" decision. Do we use the New Testament? Do we use the Old Testament? Do we use the Qu'ran? Do we use the Vedas? Do we use the teachings of Buddha? Do we use the teachings of our own personal new age guru? Do we use the writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Do we use our parents who may have been influenced by any or all of these things throughout their lifetime? Do we use our middle school peers?So, the real question is what moral standard should we adhere to? Not if there is one, because we can all use a "standard" to uphold. Whether it be a religious standard dictated by Moses or Jesus of Mohammed or Buddha or Zoroaster or various gods/their adherents or a more secular standard such as that proscribed by the American Constitution/The French Declaration of the Rights of Man/The UN Declaration of Human Rights/etc ad nauseum.The "deduction" of right and wrong seems mighty complicated when seen in the terms of the whole world.The deduction of right and wrong seems even more complicated when your "right" is seen through the eyes of another's "wrong."From what standard do you "deduce" this from?The one you believe in? How is yours "right" and everyone else's "wrong?Where is the logical deduction in that?To me, right and wrong seem highly emotional, not logical at all, my own rights and wrongs included.The questions that sidelined posed was meant to represent the complexity of morality and the human condition. When is murder (killing) justified? When is stealing justified? Is it murder? Is it stealing?That is where our "standards" come in and who says what is "justified" Yes, but a struggle towards what? Towards a perfect Christian Utopia? Or a perfect Islamic Utopia? Or a perfect Hindu Utopia? Which one? We all have near universal taboos, in the general sense, meaning that murder is defined as justified killing in certain circumstances, rape is considered a crime in certain circumstances or not (it was even OK to rape your wife in the US until just very recently), child abuse is defined differently under different circumstances/cultures, incest is defined in varying terms in varying cultures, art is considered pornography in some circles. All of these crimes/"sins" have a context. We all judge the context based on where we live and how/where we were raised, but does that mean that my definition meets yours?

Seems correct on the surface, but your questions mirror one another.Right="better" much of the time (as in do we allow a killer to kill more or do we kill him/her?).Is justice blue or red? Who says (some say that killing gays for fucking is justice in the name of their God)?Should I live my life in the name of chocolate or vanilla? Do I exist for either?You try to highlight the difference between subjective and objective by defining the subjective with seeming trivialities. However, both of your groups of examples qualify as subjective.Meaning that we, as humans, define ALL of the above in our very differing terms.You telling me that your God lays it all it out and saying that your morality is objective based on on that point of view does not mean that your morality is objective. It means your morality is subject to the book/god/pastor/parents/friends whence you got it from.Try asking the latter group of questions in an internet survey (you know like the ones which usually ask questions like "blue or red" and "chocolate or vanilla") and see what kind of answers you get.Even if one of the respondents agrees with your worldview 100% I bet their answers will differ from yours. And someone whose worldview is completely opposite from yours might surprise you and repeat your answers verbatim.We all have differing points of view and I don't think we should sacrifice them because that is the essence of debate and growth.I do, however, think that consensus is the closest thing we have to true objectivity. And objectivity/consensus is open to change and interpretation, just like science. We should all be critically thinking about the current paradigm (objectivity).That means asking hard questions like "Would you kill your mother in order to save 1 million people?" This question doesn't mean that the asker wants you to kill your mother or even that you pit her against 1 million people, but it requires that you think outside your current box in order to come to your own conclusions about life and love and whatever. That is my take on it, tho. Think about the question and not the answer.

Yes, but you accept "it most certainly is" as proof for your absolute Christian God given morality instead of the current consensus among humans that killing each other without reason (and reasons vary GREATLY throughout societies and history) is "wrong."It is not one or the other. It is not "My God is the giver of morality and none other." That is where the debate gets muddled.You have stumped no one but yourself. See my above post, but to reiterate, what standard are we using?Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.