Apart from the convoluted 3 precepts in the OP, objective morals cannot exist because at the end of the day, a (subjective) mind is needed to make a decision about moral precepts.
For example, if I say that stealing is wrong, where do I get that moral precept from? Experience? Some unspoken authority? It doesn't matter if it is either, because after both considerations, I have to decide for myself if I want to follow the moral precept, meaning I have to decide for myself if it is a moral thing to follow, a given authority or simply experience notwithstanding.
This is why I say that people are moral regardless of what authority says, because it's an wholly internal metric, regardless if you find it in a book or if you have arrived at that conclusion via experience. I just think that getting there with experience is more valid than if you just get it handed from some external source, like an authority.
For example, if I say that stealing is wrong, where do I get that moral precept from? Experience? Some unspoken authority? It doesn't matter if it is either, because after both considerations, I have to decide for myself if I want to follow the moral precept, meaning I have to decide for myself if it is a moral thing to follow, a given authority or simply experience notwithstanding.
This is why I say that people are moral regardless of what authority says, because it's an wholly internal metric, regardless if you find it in a book or if you have arrived at that conclusion via experience. I just think that getting there with experience is more valid than if you just get it handed from some external source, like an authority.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
