If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

So you have your own idiosyncratic definition of moral objectivism and moral relativism.

No the definitions are the same. The application/philosophy of those definitions is what is different. I'm specifically saying without a society to support objective morality there are no ways to maintain the objectivity of the standard. As the strongest society is who defines morality. There are no points of morality that are always universally accepted.

The standard definition of moral objectivism is that there are objective moral principles that are valid for all people.

That's my point though.. We now on the earth do not all collectively agree one any one point of morality. let alone across time. This means objective morality while a great idea and talking point does not truly exist. Again unless you can provide just one example where all nations/societies agree that a deed is moral, and has always been accepted that way. Object morality is just a thought experiment.

Yours is an oxymoron.

This is not my personal position. google it (I can not provide links to published Cambridge debates or on the articles from philosophy today on the subject I am referencing.) I am providing you with my take on an age old debate that centers around the question:"Can morality be objective?" I say Morality can't (unless you can provide an example of it) However there is an absolute standard from god that is universal and transcends time and changes in society. I have identified that standard not as morality but as God's righteousness.

I'll go out on a limb and say that no matter the circumstances, doing any of those (and I'll add torture) for fun or on a whim is immoral, alway was, always will be.

Most societies would agree. but durning WWII Japan is was encouraged. As it hardened their troops and was used to set up a class cast system that not only help maintain control and discipline it indoctrinated troops and even subjugated/conquered people to develop unquestionable loyalty to the emperor. Had Japan won the war, this would be our Norm. just as it was for them as a feudal Japanese hold over/point of moral behavior from their past. In fact torture was universally accepted by most civilizations through out our past.

The essence of moral objectivism is that some things are right or wrong no matter the prevailing fashion or who is in charge.

and all I'm asking for is just 1 example of this to prove your assertion.

This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp; since you're still struggling to impose some relevance on what the societies in power think.

lol.. What seems impossible for me to fathom is why you guys are so ready to die on the hill of objective morality when neither one of you can provide just one example of it.

I get everything you are saying. I fully understand the philosophy behind it. I even agree to a point that such a system exists. (In god's righteousness, but not in man's morality) But I'm saying because you can not produce a valid example of object morality, It does not truly exist in real life. It's just a thought experiment that has no real world application.