The definition of objective means beyond human control or desire. It can have nothing to do with you, your feelings, your emotions or anything else, it has to exist out in the real world entirely separate from the human brain. Everything that you presented are things that are your opinion, hence subjective.
I don't think that's a very good definition at all. Nor do I see why you're claiming that the human brain exists outside of objective reality. It, like everything else, follows fundamental laws, including fundamental biological laws. The electrical currents in it operate in an objective manner. The cells in it operate in an objective manner. The linking of neurons operates in an objective manner. Even the formation of memories and associations operates in an objective manner. Pavlovian responses and conditioning, which are nothing but thoughts in our brains, can be programmed via objective techniques. The effects of various chemicals on the brain operate in predictable, objective, manners. Our brains are not somehow divorced from the rest of the universe. Nor are our bodies.
Nothing in your definition "beyond human control or desire" contradicts what I said, anyway. It's our biology, not our thoughts, that determine right and wrong.
Nor does this one:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
It's not in our feelings or opinions. It's in our biology. It's in our cells, in our DNA, in our bodies.
But basically, your only point is that there is no such thing as right and wrong. And that's a useless assertion, since there clearly are. Don't try to be loftily philosophical. It just sounds dumb, and responding to things with "that's just your opinion" makes you sound like fundamentalists who think that angels exist because we can't prove that they don't. I know you're smarter than that.
The fact that a majority, even a very large one, agrees with you doesn't mean that what you consider to be moral is objectively moral. At some points in human history, human sacrifice was considered to be a good thing by the majority.
And the reasons they had for doing it were actually still within the framework I offered. Assuming that the Aztec priests who were carving out people's hearts were genuine (some of them probably were, but some were just evil people abusing power), then they actually thought that the sun would destroy the world if they didn't sacrifice people. Clearly that is an attempt to cause less suffering in the world, that only some die and not everyone. They were wrongheaded and stupid, but that still fits within the framework. In fact, every culture that I can think of that had human sacrifice did it to appease cruel gods.
But either way, while morality is objective, that doesn't mean that all people are moral or make moral choices. That right and wrong aren't up to opinion doesn't mean that a person can't still do the wrong thing. Or even a culture do the wrong thing. But it requires some overriding situation or reason to get over our biological aversion to pain, suffering, and destruction. It requires a callous class system to dehumanize people, religious brainwashing to demolish reasoning, or actual desensitization. It requires the intensity of the basic training experience to convince a person to kill in the name of something they rationally support and agree with (their country).
We know that hurting people is wrong. It's in our bones. It's in our blood. It's in our biology.
Its objective in that there are certain instincts that we tend to be born with. We are born with a dislike of murder, but a like of killing. We are born with a dislike of stealing. We are predisposed to try to get along with our neighbors. So on and so forth.
At the same basic instincts are filtered through our experience and environment, the expression of that instinct can very sharply from person to person. By instinct we dislike murder, but each of us may define murder slightly differently, introducing subjectivity into it.
So what is right and what is wrong are objective, but our reactions to that knowledge and the situations we face are subjective. That's fine. What a person does is not morality. What a person does is their actions. Whether or not they should have done that thing in the first place is morality.
That's the definition of objective morality.
No it's not. Rocks don't have morality. Stars don't have morality. Only living creatures do. Morality isn't writ large in the universe. It's writ tiny in our evolution.
