Objective Morality Follow-Up

I thought I would follow up my following post on objective morality for two reasons.

The first is that I do not think it was entirely fair to post before without explaining my reasoning behind relative morality. Simply put, morality is not the measure of bad, but the measure of good. A lot like we have no way to measure cold, only the absence of heat; or darkness, we can only quantify the amount or lack of light... Further to this point is that morality and ethical questions are not science. They are rules, not laws, guided by language and the consequences of actions. One cannot look at morality through the lens of formal logic because it is too strict. This, of course, is the beauty of formal logic, but morality is more like chaos mathematics. Extremes, unpredictable events, and soft shrieking that blows out your eardrums...

Secondly, I was, as I usually do, watching a program about prisons/prison inmates. This one gentleman, scheduled for death by lethal injection, said something quite provocative. This inmate -- a self-expressed, devout Christian -- asked the interviewer something to the effect of "Is it worse to steal a cracker, or to kill someone?" The interviewer answers "Kill someone." To which this inmate replies, "No. God doesn't see it that way. You break one commandment you break them all."