Moral Oughts

[DLJ]

The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity isn’t complicated.  It’s not even an issue of debate.
...

It isn't?  I suspect that therein lies the reason why Philosophers haven't sorted this out yet.

...
if your intended use is as a reference to facts of the object, that’s the sort of objectivity being referred to in moral theories.

Does this mean that 'objectivity' is one of those terms that means one thing to moral theorists and another thing to lay-persons?  Like "intentionality" which to a Philosopher means 'what-it's-like-to-be-ness' and to the rest of us means 'relating to intentions'.

If so, for future reference, should we read 'objectivity' as related to (dynamic or static) attributes of an entity/thing/act and not as related to bias, partiality and prejudice?

Or is it combination of criteria e.g.:
Static attributes (e.g. serial number)
Dynamic attributes (e.g. location, owner)
Independently measurable / quantifiable / verifiable attributes
... with consensus reached by independent auditors / observers?

Or is it just a way of excluding relative attributes e.g. beauty.