I am sorry TT like most of your posts it comes across to me as mindless waffle.
To show you what I mean I was dealing with the fact you have to have a reference point for any observation and you respond with this
True objectivity doesn't give more or less to anything but rather notes the outcomes following certain choices that are repeated over and over again with the same results, regardless of any changes in the political, or religious climate over several hundred years (inclusive of certain immutable standards).
At best I can guess that was dealing with the direction thing which is actually secondary to the main issue. You have outcomes you so you are measuring so you had to have a reference point IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE OUTCOMES OTHERWISE.
You can try and dance around the word measure and talk about noting, recording, monitoring, scrutiny, examination use whatever word you like it has to have a reference if it doesn't you can't observe and can't have outcomes.
Lets leave the directionality aside the issue is with the reference on morality. Hitler for example may have considered himself to be a very moral man because he was good to his dog and that is how he rates morality, I have no idea how Hitler saw his morality but we judge him based on our morality as being evil.
There is no universal rating on morality it is very much a point of reference issue and as I said as far as I know all religions have a point of reference for it and for example for christian it is 10 commandments and then the church may add some other thoughts in on top, I know for example Rev K would go big on love etc.
You can sit there and make your millions of objective observations (yawn) and now you have to put a spot somewhere on those observations and say that there is the most moral and that is my reference point.
So the question being asked directly to you is what is your point of reference of judging morality.
