Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[ignoramus]

OP, we don't have free will, right? God's plan and all that?
Morality becomes a moot point anyway. If you believe that rubbish.

Basing anything on religious texts is a moot point if the prime suspect can not be shown to exist in the first place.
All other extrapolations based on this this become absolutely meaningless.

[henryp]

If someone is trying to rape you, you can stab them in the face, and that would not be wrong in my opinion.  Stabbing someone in the face certainly qualifies as causing harm.  So you'd at a minimum have to sharpen up the idea of 'doing harm'.

That would be an issue of competing moral imperatives.  OFC it's not wrong to stab someone in the face for trying to rape you, if that;s what you have to do to stop someone from raping you.  No one faults -some- terrible things a person might do in defense of themselves.  An objective assessment of the harm caused, in that case, is actually -required- in order to reach a justifiable moral pronouncement on both the attacker...and the defender.

Stab them, wally.  Stab the shit out of them.  But...if that stops them from raping you....don't...then...cut them up into little pieces and serve them as a pie to their family.   Objectively justifiable defense of one's self only goes so far.

Further..one could argue that you have an objective moral -duty- to stab them in the face.......since, if you can defend yourself, and choose not to, you have not only failed to satisfy what would be moral for yourself.....you have failed to do what might stop them from doing it to some other.

No doubt.  I'm just saying 'do no harm' is not a clean cut objective end of the philosophical argument.  Someone can go blow up an abortion clinic and say it's an objectively justifiable defense of unborn babies, for example.  And that's wouldn't exactly be untrue.

[Little Henry]

I think you're conflating and equivocating topics to mash out a seeming contradiction.

Subjectivity does not preclude objective results, nether does it preclude someone saying 'that's wrong', and neither does it preclude a society basing legislative and judicial precedents and structural frameworks upon it. . Some people may believe rape is ok, but you'd be hard pushed to find many that would agree with that. In wars the women are often the prize and people turn a blind eye to it, or worse, actively encourage it (example above from downbeatplumb). Does that not directly evidence the subjective nature of it?

Morality is a human construct and has been established over the course of both our biological and societal evolution. Precedent, consensus, and the interactions of agential and structural discourses about what value we place on both society and its laws/rules. That's the cornerstone of a discussion on morality and ethics, and as such I think that would be a good place to start.

If that is all it is, then morality is not objective. There is no right or wrong moral acts.

If you think they are just the spin offs from the socio evolutionary process, then consider Michael Ruse's quote....emphasis mine.

"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . 

So really, claiming moral acts such as rape is just an illusion. They arent wrong.

---

Instead of 'objective morality', why don't you consider it objective practicality in achieving a goal.

How do we set up a society that works for everyone?  Well, if everyone's gang raping girls, that's, I'd argue, objectively not going to work out great for the girls.  So gang rape is out.

If we lived in a society where the goal was men matter, and no one else, gang rape is back on the table.  Unless a bunch of men don't want their wives and daughters gang-raped, and they conclude outlawing gang rape is probably the most practical way to solve that problem.  But there's room for debate there.

I think this generic idea is reflected if you look back through history.  What is the goal, and what you call morality is actually how the goal is practically achieved.

This is called prudential value. It begs the question.

Is it wrong if society or the human species does not flourish?
If you deny OM, then you cannot say it is right or wrong for humans or any species to flourish.
It may be preferable or desirable, but you cannot substitute like/dislike with right/wrong.

---

But if OM doesnt exist, then as in the tennis example, they are just delusions in our heads.

Firstly,  learn to fucking quote.  Just do it.  Sometime between now and when you next post, because this shit is a nightmare.  Consider it a moral duty, referent to an objective morality, if that helps.  

The tennis example isn't a moral example, there is no moral component to it, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's delusional in whatever sense you mean that.  It's completely uninformative...and even if we strech it as far as credulity wiull allow it exposes no problem or issue with morality, objective or subjective.  Two people may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in their heads..or they may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in some book they have.  

If moral facts dont exist, then it is just like playing with no lines. Saying OM doesnt exist, but then claiming moral rights wrongs is admitting that we are all just suffering from a delusion, like the tennis game i used above in the back street.

No one's playing any game, hopefully, with their moral concepts.  It's pretty serious stuff.  Moral objectivists have their lines, moral subjectivists have their lines.  We all have our lines.  

Of course it does...if no objective facts exist, then it is just something you made up. A man made construct.

Why would it matter if it were?  If the notion that rape is wrong was entirely man made and referred to nothing other than people thinking that rape was wrong..would it be any more or less wrong?  Would it be any more or less anyone's opinion that rape was wrong?  No, because it -doesn't- matter.  

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.

Sure, no point in wasting ink trying to communicate why -I- think you're delusional, because it doesn't matter to our discussion.  If ghosts aren't telling you what's right and wrong, you still think that some act x is wrong.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not ghosts are telling you that.  

Similarly, if it's.."just like, a subjectivists opinion..man," that some act is wrong....it's still their opinion that some x is wrong.  You don't really have to agree with them (and vv) as to why it's wrong, but you both agree that it is.  This is how objective and subjective moral theorists can come to moral agreement.  It;s how believers and non-believers can come to moral agreement.  There's alot of moral overlap between all four groups, and between the moral statements of all four groups.

Well, if OM does not exist, and then saying rape is wrong means you are no different to the Theist. It is just a mental construct you made in your head. It doesnt exist in reality and you act according to this delusion the same as the Theist does.

Tu qoque...god you believers will settle for the silliest shit.  Mental constructs do exist in reality.  Calling something a mental construct does nothing to establish that it doesn't exist.  Their opinion is still their opinion even if it's just an opinion and...obviously, their opinion exists.  

Ok, so you believe moral facts exist? If this is the case, we can stop arguing here and we can turn our attention to the grounding of these moral facts which will differ between you and i.

I do, I told you that at the outset.  I would probably stop arguing with you if you stopped saying silly shit.

It is made up if it doesnt exist in reality, like you and i pretending we are batman superman.

Aren;t you and I pretending to be batman and superman..in reality?  Things being made up, doesn;t mean that they don;t exist..calling them made up explicitly denotes that they do exist..as something somebody "made up".  

This doesnt make sense.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on sense, so it's unsurprising to me that you would think that.  Your opinion is wrong, and made up..but it exists, in reality, in you.  

The same way as when i said the ball is out when the ball was hit even though there is no line?

Then you believe that the ball is out - there is a line, to you.  What's the problem?  
 

The same way as i really though the ball is out?

Probably not, since moral subjectivists will refer to a long list of reasons why they think "the ball is out" or why they think the line is where it is..but yeah, sure..fundamentally the same way.  This is equally true of moral objectivists like yourself or myself.  

According to who or what am i wrong?Consider this.

I think the person who needs to start doing a little considering might be you.............

I say the sun rotates around the earth, am i right or wrong? You say wrong. Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

Factually or logically wrong.

I say rape is right, you say its wrong.  Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

You mean..morally wrong?

See...-this- is why you are wrong...you literally cannot be right - your argument is fallacious.   

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

So you admit if something is subjective you cannot put a right or wrong against it?

Read that entire exchange again...and tell me where you began to believe that anything I said above is accurately described by you..in that last line?  Stop.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

So child rape is neither is right or wrong?

If you have to ask you're no more a moral agent than a duck, again.

Just pointing out logical conclusion of it.

A logic free logical conclusion.  That's a novel idea.  I think you just made it up, in your head, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Law of non contradiction say it cannot be.

You seem to think that moral subjectivity ha a problem with the law of non-contradiction..it doesn't.  A moral subjectivist doesn;t think that some act is both right and wrong simultaneously.  Go, ask them.  Ask any of these moral subjectivists if they think that rape is both right and wrong?  That would probably yield more insight than frothing at the mouth like a common christer loon, repeatedly insisting that they -must- believe that.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

-and it's a fact that taken 1 and 2 sucked...they sucked so hard, they hit the floor of suck, where all examples of suckiness are equally sucky.  Therefore one -cannot- be suckier than the other...there's no room left at the bottom.

Is that all now? You resort to mockery?

---

You deserve every bit of it...and probably more.  See...look..a moral judgement..and I just made up up, with my head..as a human being...and it even exists!

I'm a never-ending fountain of derision for people like yourself.  Just like jesus, no matter how much I give, I've always got more for the next guy.

If you agree that OM exists, then their is no point in continuing this discussion.

We can discuss the foundation of OM.

---

Ok, so you are admitting to objective morality? Ie, it is a FACT that you OUGHT not harm others?

Not a bit of it.  I'm saying that the moral stricture to not harm other people is not the same as a disagreement over which foods are tasty.  If you'd read a biut more carefully, I'm also saying that all moral strictures are variable as relates to time, place and other factors.  If morality was objective, the Roman matron I mentioned earlier would have been aghast at the thought of leaving her newborn on a rubbish tip.

Taste in food is subjective. If morality is also subjective, then why are they different?
If people act and behave differently has nothing to do if OM exists.

So you saying we have improved morally? If so, this admits to objective morality.

*chuckle*  Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort (although I grasp how much you want me to).  I'm saying that you and I who recoil in horror at the thought of the torture and rape of the little girl you mentioned are neither more or less moral than a person from a society where such an act is viewed as moral.  We are moral in our societal matrix, they are moral in theirs.

Has it occurred to you that, if morality were indeed objective, it couldn't in anywise be 'improved'?

Boru

So, if these rules are made up, we are then acting according to these made up rules...which means we are just suffering from a delusion.
You cannot substitute like/dislike with right/wrong.

---

The argument seems to be that if there is no god then there is no right or wrong.

I fail to see how injecting a supernatural arbiter makes any difference.

God thinks rape is wrong, rape happens god does nothing, people think rape is bad.

What part did god play in that.

You could take out the whole god bit and it makes much more sense.

If God exists, the objective moral values and duties are grounded in his nature. They arent grounded in his opinion.

---

@Tiz

It's funny, because it's not even hard to do.  ala-

I think that rape is wrong.

-Why?  Because it causes harm (and not a little...alot)

Is it just, like, you know...my opinion, man...that rape causes harm?

-No, ofc not.  It objectively does.

What if somebody else thinks it doesn't?

-Somebody else™ is wrong, again objectively.....and probably a rapist (jk...they're just a rapist sympathizer, lol)

What if somebody else doesn't care whether or not it causes harm?

-Then somebody else™ has an empathy deficit, and it doesn't matter whether or not they care.

What If I really really really wanna gang up like a pack of ducks (wtf) with my friends to rape someone?

-Then you need to seek help, because you're probably going to end up finding sympathetic ducks to gang rape some poor girl...regardless of whether or not it's wrong, and even if you accept that it -is- wrong.

You just made that up, that's from a human mind, it's not real, it's delusional..it's incoherent

-I didn't make it up, it is from a human mind, but the harm caused by rape is in no way a delusion, nor is it's designation as a bad thing because it causes harm anything other than straight laced coherence.

Saying rape is wrong because it objectively causes harm only shifts the argument to whether or not causing harm is wrong.

Then when asked why causing harm is wrong, you say something about empathy which varies incredibly widely from person to person and species to species.  

Nothing wrong with appealing to the common good.  But empathy is weak sauce as a foundation, particularly given the behavior of humans throughout history, where it's shown to be very different than 21st century 1st world countries than everywhere else.

Empathy has nothing to do with right/wrong.

Liking/disliking something has nothing to do with it being right/wrong.

---

That seems an enormous strawman to me.
We arent claiming that we apply the morals subjectively, but that we derive them that way as individuals and as societies. Once settled upon, we tend to apply them uniformly, with a great deal going onto any changes, though naturally changes do happen.

That entire piece relies on the notion that people who are moral relatavists wish to apply their morals relatively, or subjectively if you will. That is not at all what a person who says morals are subjective is claiming.

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?

Absolutely fantastic summary. You summed it up perfectly as to what message i am trying to get through.

You seem like you have a good insight into the topic.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you see many posters here denying OM yet acting and behaving as if they really exist? This is what i see.

---

Sure, no point in wasting ink trying to communicate why -I- think you're delusional, because it doesn't matter to our discussion.  If ghosts aren't telling you what's right and wrong, you still think that some act x is wrong.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not ghosts are telling you that.  

Similarly, if it's.."just like, a subjectivists opinion..man," that some act is wrong....it's still their opinion that some x is wrong.  You don't really have to agree with them (and vv) as to why it's wrong, but you both agree that it is.  This is how objective and subjective moral theorists can come to moral agreement.  It;s how believers and non-believers can come to moral agreement.  There's alot of moral overlap between all four groups, and between the moral statements of all four groups.

@Little Henry - So here is how morality can be objective without any gods.  It starts out as subjective.  But then you take note of what morals people just do happen to have in common - and by far nearly everyone shares almost all morality in common.  So then you look through all the morals people have in common and you start noticing common themes.  From those you distill a hierarchy of morality - things like non-harm, mutual support, reciprocity, the usual suspects.  That hierarchy of morals is objectively the morality of our species, the distillate of those 'shoulds' which have best served us and therefore been selected for through natural selection and culture.  

That desnt make it objective at all...For something to be objective, it must be true or exist regardless of anyone's opinion.

If this seems hard it is probably because you subscribe to belief in radical free will.  No one has dispositions which largely determine actions; according to that point of view all actions are freely chosen.  This leads those who share this POV to imagine that either behavior must be governed by OM facts or else behavior would simply be random - which clearly it is not.  But our actions are not chosen on a purely rational basis.  I'm sure to a highly intelligent alien our actions would seem as predictable as those of a pet dog.  We just don't see it from within our human framework.  It is very hard to distinguish which actions reflect a rational decision and which show the sway of our dispositional heritage.  That doesn't mean we don't have one.  Those are the facts.

Free will is a radical belief? if free will doesnt exist, then it is incoherent to assign moral blame to someone.
Tell me, suppose i pushed you onto an old lady who tumbled over and fell onto the street and was hit and killed by a bus.
Is it your fault? No. It was circumstances outside your control that caused the old lady to be killed.
If free will does not exist, then it is no ones fault for anything. If free will does not exist and i punched you in the face, am i morally responsible for punching you in the face?
No, because according to you, i punched you in the face by forces outside my control like when you shoved the old lady onto the street.

[Little Henry]

If this is the case, then moral acts are neither right or wrong. They are just preferences and desires, not right or wrong.

Then you deny that a human can make moral judgements? How, then, do you assert your morality proper?

Humans make moral judgements. If you wish to dismiss those judgements because they don't share your own premises, that's your business. But then at that point you yourself are practicing moral subjectivity -- "their morals are wrong because they aren't based as mine are."

In other words, you insist on equivocating, and I'm unimpressed. *yawn*

If OM does not exist, then moral judgements are just delusions...

---

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.
. . . . .
But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

Our intentions in talking about something can be mistaken.  When people believed the earth was flat, they talked as if the world were flat.  Their intention was irrelevant to the fact.   Beyond that, all you've basically done is assert.  You know what would show that morality is objective?  An explanation of morality that can be demonstrated to be correct.  That is how we show that something is objective.  Do you have an explanation of morality that can be demonstrated to be correct?  I see you making a lot of assertions, but haven't seen anything like an explanation of how morals work.  Until you can do that, all you've got is an ipse dixit argument.  

As soon as you label a moral act right or wrong, you are already admitting that OM exists. Right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to subjective items.

In your title you tentatively assert that morality being objective is a properly basic belief.  I take that to mean you are employing reformed epistemology as a foundation for your beliefs.  I reject reformed epistemology.  Any framework that asserts that something is true until it can be shown false is nothing but a wholesale falsehood.  In traditional foundationalism, a belief is basic if it is either self-evident or it is incorrigible.  The belief that morality is objective is neither of these things.


For what it's worth, I'm not a subjectivist in the sense that you mean because I believe the foundation of our morals lies in evolution, not God.  But it does point out an important question about morality.  Does our metaphysics not alter what we view as moral and immoral.  A middle eastern woman is killed because of being an abomination to God.  To those who don't believe in God, this act itself is an abomination.  Can we ever have objective facts about metaphysics?

Evolution does not make morality objective. It is just an adaptation acquired to enhance the survival of species...not objective.

---

Consider this quote by Michael Ruse

"What I want to argue is that there are no foundations to normative ethics. If you think that to be true a claim has to refer to some particular thing or things, my claim is that in an important sense, normative ethics is false… the claims of normative ethics are like the rules of a game. In baseball, it is true that after three strikes the batter is out; but this claim does not have any reference or correspondence in absolute reality.” (Michael Ruse:1995:248-9)

If you deny OM exists, then your moral claims have no " reference or correspondence in absolute reality".

[Whateverist]

@Little Henry - So here is how morality can be objective without any gods.  It starts out as subjective.  But then you take note of what morals people just do happen to have in common - and by far nearly everyone shares almost all morality in common.  So then you look through all the morals people have in common and you start noticing common themes.  From those you distill a hierarchy of morality - things like non-harm, mutual support, reciprocity, the usual suspects.  That hierarchy of morals is objectively the morality of our species, the distillate of those 'shoulds' which have best served us and therefore been selected for through natural selection and culture.

 

That desnt make it objective at all...For something to be objective, it must be true or exist regardless of anyone's opinion.

Well technically that is what is generally meant by objective morality alright.  But my statement that morality tends to consist of the same sentiments across the entire human species does not depend on my subjective opinion.  It is an objective claim which can be tested.

If this seems hard it is probably because you subscribe to belief in radical free will.  No one has dispositions which largely determine actions; according to that point of view all actions are freely chosen.  This leads those who share this POV to imagine that either behavior must be governed by OM facts or else behavior would simply be random - which clearly it is not.  But our actions are not chosen on a purely rational basis.  I'm sure to a highly intelligent alien our actions would seem as predictable as those of a pet dog.  We just don't see it from within our human framework.  It is very hard to distinguish which actions reflect a rational decision and which show the sway of our dispositional heritage.  That doesn't mean we don't have one.  Those are the facts

Free will is a radical belief? if free will doesnt exist, then it is incoherent to assign moral blame to someone.

Not sure if you're being facetious but if not you should reread what I wrote.  To call a variety of free will radical is hardly the same thing as saying all interpretations of free will are radical.  The rest of what you wrote there seems not to apply to what I said.
[/quote]

[Astreja]

Henry, I view all morality as subjective, even if it comes from a god (in which case it's the god's subjective values underlying a code of morality).

There is a natural tendency for certain values to become prominent in successful societies.  It's difficult to feel safe in a culture where killing is permissible, so one would expect to see a lot of people defecting to safer tribes where the moral code prohibits killing and members of the tribe protect their neighbours from harm.

IMO, moral codes are beginning to move beyond basic needs like physical safety and are becoming more supportive of individual differences (on the condition that those differences do not cause direct harm to someone else, which would be a violation of the need for physical safety).  In that regard, one could possibly create a hierarchy of morals analogous to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

[Cecelia]

Morality is subjective to our own level of compassion and empathy. People tend not to accept morality doesn't match their level of empathy.

[Ravenshire]

Henry, I view all morality as subjective, even if it comes from a god (in which case it's the god's subjective values underlying a code of morality).

Not only is morality completely subjective, it's also relative.

[downbeatplumb]

Empathy has nothing to do with right/wrong.

Liking/disliking something has nothing to do with it being right/wrong.

Yes it does, because at the end of the day it is just my subjective opinion.

What part is god supposed to play in morality other than the idea making otherwise good people evil.

Without the idea of god there would be two more landmarks in New York. There'd be fewer wars and less division across the world and Turkey would not be leaving the twenty first century to head back to the 14th.

Religion does affect morality, but not in the direction you think.

[Angrboda]

Our intentions in talking about something can be mistaken.  When people believed the earth was flat, they talked as if the world were flat.  Their intention was irrelevant to the fact.   Beyond that, all you've basically done is assert.  You know what would show that morality is objective?  An explanation of morality that can be demonstrated to be correct.  That is how we show that something is objective.  Do you have an explanation of morality that can be demonstrated to be correct?  I see you making a lot of assertions, but haven't seen anything like an explanation of how morals work.  Until you can do that, all you've got is an ipse dixit argument.

 

As soon as you label a moral act right or wrong, you are already admitting that OM exists. Right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to subjective items.

Seeing that I didn't use the words right or wrong, I'm not sure what it is you're responding to. It doesn't appear to be a response to anything I've written. Instead, it appears that you're just bleating out a prerehearsed talking point like some sort of idiotic robot. If you're not going to engage the subject of the debate, then don't bother me with your preformed little spiel. I've heard it before. You ignored the point about word usage not reflecting underlying reality, and made an explicit appeal to the notion that word usage determines underlying reality. What the fuck are you reading? It certainly isn't me. You have failed to engage on any point made in my paragraph. I note that you have evaded my call to provide a working explanation of morality. I can only take this to mean that you don't have one. In which case all you can do is state your conclusions and not the reasons behind them. That results in bare assertions and question begging. It doesn't get any more ipse dixit than that.

In your title you tentatively assert that morality being objective is a properly basic belief.  I take that to mean you are employing reformed epistemology as a foundation for your beliefs.  I reject reformed epistemology.  Any framework that asserts that something is true until it can be shown false is nothing but a wholesale falsehood.  In traditional foundationalism, a belief is basic if it is either self-evident or it is incorrigible.  The belief that morality is objective is neither of these things.

No response given. I take it your opinions about objective morality being a properly basic belief is just another one of your "talking points," a conclusion devoid of any real reasoning behind it.

For what it's worth, I'm not a subjectivist in the sense that you mean because I believe the foundation of our morals lies in evolution, not God.  But it does point out an important question about morality.  Does our metaphysics not alter what we view as moral and immoral.  A middle eastern woman is killed because of being an abomination to God.  To those who don't believe in God, this act itself is an abomination.  Can we ever have objective facts about metaphysics?

Evolution does not make morality objective. It is just an adaptation acquired to enhance the survival of species...not objective.

So morality cannot come from evolution. Morality also cannot come from God. That's two places that morality cannot come from. You were offered a chance to provide an explanation as to where morality did come from, but you deferred. I guess you don't know. Which makes the source of all these strident assertions and bold talking points something of a mystery.

You say that evolved morals are "just" an adaptation, that they are not therefore objective. I disagree. It is an objective fact that normal humans have five fingers on each hand. It is also an objective fact that certain features of our brains exist as part of normal human development. Just as it is an objective fact that our minds construct three dimensional vision out of stereoscopic two dimensional images. It is a fact that the mind constructs moral imperatives as a consequence of our evolutionary history. They are an invariant part of our mental landscape. That means they don't vary from person to person because of arbitrary or random conditions dependent on each mind. That is a more useful definition of the split between objective and subjective than on which side of the blood brain barrier the conditions lie. Morality is an objective fact of our mental existence because of our evolution. Those animals which felt an imperative to survive, survived. Those which didn't, didn't survive. That is how an ought is derived from an is. Likewise, imperatives useful to a social species are embedded in our mental landscape. To be human is to believe that fairness matters; harm matters; authority and loyalty matter; as does purity/cleanliness. These are facts of human existence. That they are computed by the brain does not mean that they are not objective with respect to the individual mind.

Perhaps, if I were to do your thinking for you, what you mean is that while evolution can evolve imperatives that have an objective character, these imperatives are not 'moral' in some well defined way. That I think is begging the question, asserting that imperatives of a moral character can only come from outside the brain. That is not a foregone conclusion. As noted, the moral features of our mental landscape are invariant across the species. Thus they form a viable candidate for a functionally objective foundation for morals. Their character as 'moral' imperatives is predetermined by our DNA. That character is as much a part of our biology as having five fingers is. It is not a mere preference that you have five fingers, nor is it as a mere preference that your moral opinions make themselves felt as they do.

Consider this quote by Michael Ruse

"What I want to argue is that there are no foundations to normative ethics. If you think that to be true a claim has to refer to some particular thing or things, my claim is that in an important sense, normative ethics is false… the claims of normative ethics are like the rules of a game. In baseball, it is true that after three strikes the batter is out; but this claim does not have any reference or correspondence in absolute reality.” (Michael Ruse:1995:248-9)

If you deny OM exists, then your moral claims have no " reference or correspondence in absolute reality".

This is begging the question again. I'll also note that I don't care much for analogies. Analogies take points that are known to be in common between two things, and use that fact to infer that unknown points are thus likely also in common between the two. This is a non sequitur. While it is true that the rules in baseball are determined by individual minds, this analogy is silent on the question of whether or not they are dependent in the same way as the rules of morality. As noted above, they are not, and so the analogy fails. Even without the above information, it's inconclusive whether the two situations are in fact similar in the desired respect. So I would suggest you drop the arguments from analogy and stick to providing actual reasoned responses.