Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

That statement is tautologically true. If that morality is not based on facts, then it cannot be called objective morality.

I would agree, which is precisely the reason I'm always looking for one of those facts when these sorts of discussions begin. On the other hand, the morality we have doesn't seem to be based on facts (nor does it seem to need to be based on facts for it to be operable). What with this hit-or-miss morality being the only one we've ever seen, I'm the kind of person that requires a little more in the way of "hey maybe, if and if and if". But I know we're just brainstorming it here, and that you haven't claimed to have found any of these moral facts definitively. So no worries on that count.

Since morality is a guide on how to act, the facts regarding human actions - such as our biological and rational capacities - would come under moral facts.

Well now wait a minute, maybe I was wrong above. You do have an idea as to where we might look, is this as far as you have taken it, or have you isolated a moral fact?

No, it may also be based on the subject's emotions or desires. Basically, if it derives from the subject's mind and/or thoughts about it, it is subjective.

Agreed, a stickler might ask you if you have ever experienced a thought that did not arise from your mind, but we'd be splitting hairs at that point.

No, being based on reality is the requirement. Since reality cannot be but logical, being so is a reliable test for morality's objectivity.

A minor point of contention here, reality may not be able to be anything but logical, but this does not mean that what we currently perceive as logical is the end all be all, and our large collection of logical fallacies attests to our ability to get the whole logic bit wrong. Again, it would be a case of "so far as we know". I don't have a problem with this, but again, keep in mind that you and I aren't the only ones in this discussion and such a thing might fly completely unnoticed by Mystic, for example, who asserts a universal unchanging and absolute something or other of morality.

The premise of your question is wrong. In the situation you outlined, the question of objective or subjective becomes moot, since it cannot be considered morality in the first place. The key difference between human and animal morality is that animals simply act according to instinct or conditioning. Human actions, on the other hand, have to be considered before they come under the purview of morality. Consider that we do not judge the parasites in our body according to human standards of good and evil. Further, when someone is shown to be incapable of understanding his actions - such as an infant or the mentally-challenged - we do not hold them responsible for their actions either.

Whoa there, not because you say so Genk. We have every reason to believe that many of our "moral considerations" weren't the product of some well reasoned or well considered process. I concede that these things would not be a part of what constitutes morality to you, but this ad hoc morality does exist whilst yours is still only hypothetical. We don't judge them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't. That's classic is-ought, or am I mistaken? Not that our ad hoc morality isn't in the same boat, mind you.

No, it would still be objective with regards to them since it would be wholly based on facts regarding those species and not anyone's thoughts about them. Things do not become objective to subjective even if they change from person to person. The pattern of your finger-prints, for example, is objective, even though it is unique to you.

I'm not sure that the fingerprints analogy is a very good one, fingerprints are material, demonstrable, etc.... and we're talking perceptions of what does or does not constitute "morality".

Relative is not the same as subjective. Things can be relative and objective at the same time.

Absolutely true, bad choice of words on my part.

Something is objective if it:
1. Depends on the object of inquiry rather than the subject.
or 2. Is independent of anyone's thoughts, opinions or desires regarding it.
or 3. Depends on facts of reality.

I'm not doubting that you consistently use the word. I give you a little more credit than all that. Gimme a moment to find a better way to phrase this particular question, I thought I laid it out fairly simply, but I probably didn't.

I've already proposed two of them, I'll now give all three.
1. Morality is a guide for a moral agent regarding how to act.
2. A moral agent needs to be both alive and free to be able to act according to the code.
3. Every action has a goal.

This is the part I love. I like the first one, however, is morality a guide or is it merely the sum total of how we do act? Judging from existent moralities the lines seem blurry, and this is only my opinion. A moral agent could also be absolutely dead and avoid coming into conflict with this code as often as a living moral agent -that's just an amusing thing that comes to mind, not really any sort of criticism. Every action has a goal...well....perhaps, even if we can't determine what that goal is.

So, in the business of establishing these as moral facts aren't you going to be haunted by the same thing that haunted you the last time we invoked moral agents, and the conditions for being classified as a moral agent? Wouldn't those have to be definitively shown? We can't be ad hoc rationalizers, if this proclamation is to be all-encompassing, can we? I can't say that I find too much in the way of issues with where this is going, once we concede that there is possibly such a morality, that there are possibly moral agents, the third seems to come out of left field but the second would follow by definition. Thing is, and I think I've found a way to rephrase that question above, are we entirely certain that we aren't working backwards on this, we know what we want to assert, and so we propose a definition that would allow us to do so?