Any Nihilists here?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, exactly.  But considering the holding of things to be valuable or have worth is a subjective assessment done by agents.

So consistency, taken as a logical law or something, is something that does X, in this case (at least what I was thinking about), X being a way of sorting propositions that avoids incoherence between them.  This property might well be objective.

But whether that utility of avoiding incoherence is valuable is decided by an agent, and it seems to me can only be decided by an agent.  This would be subjective.

Tying this back to moral realism, punching Bob causes harm to Bob (objectively), but deciding that this is immoral is an agential assessment (subjective).

Sure, subjects can apprehend things.  That in and of itself doesn't make that thing subjective.  Is the sun subjective because I apprehend it?  OFC not.  The sun is there whether I apprehend or consider it.  So too is a box and the utility of a box.  

I like harm based examples.  If harm is one of the things we're talking about when we discuss good and bad then punching bob is immoral regardless of what I, an agent, might decide.  I could conceivably decide that punching bob is not bad (lets say I really want to punch bob!) - but I would be plain and simply wrong.  

Calling anything that people do or see or conclude subjective just isn't workable.  It's not what moral theorists mean when they use the term at all. To say that punching bob is subjectively bad takes the focus off of the punch - and asserts that it is either just my opinion that punching people causes harm - it doesn't really, or that I'm not at all interested in the factual details of punching or of harm and I call it bad for some solely internal reason (or non reason).

Harm is a vague word.

So is health.