The Stage is Yours.

[Anomalocaris]

No I'm stating that if we didn't have a moral conscious (which often we react to instantly) and it was only instinct, we would be able to reject that we should act on those instincts and see that is no real "should" do or command, hence no objective morality.

As we are able to.

Just as we may choose to reject, we may also choose in whatever manner that moves us to not see that we could reject. That we choose not to see the fact that we could reject doesn't make that which we therefore do no reject "objective".

So wehether we can or can not reject do does not impact on whether there is such a thing as obejective morality. Only through understanding what constitute morality can one deduce whether morality can even allow for the possibility of any "objective" version of itself. So your line of argument based on whether we have the capacity to reject morality is totally spurious.

But since you claim to follow this spurious line, I just showed you that objective morality doesn't exist even using the spurious line you subscribe to.

Even if we are literally unable to reject, that is vastly more likely to speak to inherent physiological defect of our brain than to any special status of the thing beyond our power to reject.

But we have a higher conscious, that has a belief we should do things or should not do things..

The "higher conciousness" is nothing more than attributing to the mystical what can be better explained by some form of perceptual or cognative inadaquacy, in most cases not even generally applicable to humans but only to a small subset including you.

---

Which of the three describe your position to "objective greatness".

1. The claim to knowing there is no such thing.
2. The belief there is no such thing, but no claim to knowledge of this belief
3. Not believing there is a such thing, neither believing there is no such thing.
4. Believing there is a such thing, but no claim to knowledge it exists.

In each of your four options, you misrepresent "the thing"