Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

If it walks like a cat, and quacks like a cat, it's probably a cat.  Or, you can just say that "cat" means whatever that is.

Something like that.  A cat is a cat, right?  You could say "late model chevy" while pointing at a cat...and it's still a cat.  

That's the difference.  A cat HAS a "whatever that is."  Whatever it is, it has whiskers, a tail, says "Meow" a lot, and acts like a little bitch most of the time.  What has the whatever-that-is of goodness?  What do the words "right" or "wrong" even point to?  What experience, real or illusory, intuited or otherwise, are the words even intended to talk about?

If they talk about observable properties of things, I'd call them objective.  If they do not, I would not.

Well, non naturalists aren't really talking about properties of things, the way that naturalists are, obvs....but they still maintain that what they are referring to is sensible, objective, and accessible.

The Buddhists call mind the 6th sense.  It kind of makes sense, since when you think, you are watching the thought pass through your conscious awareness.  However, so long as they are passing only through YOUR awareness (you can't see my imaginary unicorn, bruh!), then for me it's a stretch to call that objective in any meaningful sense.