Great marriage advice.

[brewer]

Right or wrong also covers good and bad. Right relates to good as wrong relates to bad. And I said a/an action, not any action. Thanks for changing words to fit your position. 

Let me give you the definition of moral again, maybe you can read and understand this time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

You have no clue what you are talking about when discussing moral objectivity/subjectivity. I believe that's why you won't answer the questions. That's why you bring up landslides, geography, Mongolia and pancakes. Either that or you can't admit when your wrong.  

Either way you're a twat waddle and this discussion is over.

Edit I: Some light reading for you (unsure if this will help): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Edit II: This also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

 
All we are doing is having a discussion and I have not once baited you or insulted you. My only crime is disagreement. No need to act like an angry child. 

So, I am already familiar with Standfords website and have read it before. Glad you found it. Here is their definition of morality taken from Mill.

:the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which [a happy existence] might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. A happy existence cannot proceed unless our basic necessities are first met which secure our existence in the first place. These necessities are not subjective and the objective facts of our nature force us to gravitate towards our basic needs as a means towards any other end. 
THEREFORE it is an objective fact that our basic needs have utility value, allowing us to survive long enough to pursue any other goal. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things.

Heaven forbid you should encounter ideas you disagree with. Sheesh!

Stanford, either can't read, didn't read, or can't comprehend. 

Please, you've baited me several times, the same as I have you. . Don't try to take the high road after the fact, very disingenuous. 

Mill, another theory, and miss quoted, nice! Here is a better quote from the founder: "Jeremy Bentham the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism ...Do you see any subjective elements in the quote? Hint - "minus the suffering". How much suffering? What level of suffering? 

Morals are not a necessity. 

BTW, offering me either pancakes or eggs for breakfast has a moral component if I'm diabetic or have cardiovascular disease due to hypercholesterolemia. 

Heaven forbid you can't support a position on morals

Oops, I morally said "this discussion is over.". That must be subjective/relativism creeping in.