A question on death and suffering.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Objectively wrong" doesn't mean anything, so you have to establish some sort of value system before you can gauge what is "wrong".

If we put a positive value on a human life, then taking it away is a negative action. With nothing positive to balance it, it's instantly wrong.

If instead we give a moderate positive value to enjoyment and a high negative value to suffering, we might estimate that any particular life ends up with a net negative value. In such a case it could be argued that killing is in fact a good thing, ignoring the effect on anyone else.

Putting something..or someone, out of their misery - for example..eh? There's mercy in death..for some.  It's something we understand and do.  We don't generally consider that murder. I've never murdered a dog or a horse or a human being in my life. That statement, however, doesn;t rule out my having killed one or all of the three.

It all entirely depends on the individual and the value system. None of them are "correct". All we can do is compare our systems and see if we can come up with agreements or compromises. Since we are fairly similar and evolved together, overlaps aren't surprising.

An objective moral statement is one which considers those dependencies in a factual manner.  That's what "objectively wrong" means. That x, y and z are the relevant facts of the matter, they are true, therefore the moral statement is true.