Can something be objectively immoral and not simultaneously absolutely immoral?
Definitions of the difference between objective and absolute morality tend to commit a comparison error.
"Objective morality might state that killing for fun is wrong, whereas absolute morality states killing is always wrong".
The error lies in the fact that like is not being compared with like. The "for fun" element is neglected in the example of absolute morality.
An objective morality might state that killing for fun is wrong, but an absolute morality could make exactly the same claim, ie: that killing for fun is wrong.
'Objective' is defined as "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" (Oxford Languages - Philosophy).
'Absolute' is defined as "a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things" (Oxford Languages- Philosophy).
I don't subscribe to the existence of an objective morality, but supposing for a moment that objective morality exists:
Can something be objectively immoral yet not simultaneously absolutely immoral?