Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Mudhammam]

I think the issue here is that Chad is talking about knowledge of objective morality, whereas I'm talking about the existence of it. I agree with him that knowledge requires both a subject and a mind to host that knowledge claim, but when we're talking about something that apparently blinks out of existence the moment a certain mind disappears, we're talking about an opinion and not a referent to something that actually exists.

So then with morality, it seems that at bottom one must first claim a value system, which is inevitably subjective, but once one acquires that then an objective paradigm can emerge from which we judge certain actions to be right and wrong--and we say these particular judgments are as objective as anything else because our value system (which places the source of moral value and meaning where it belongs--in the sentient being) is the only one grounded in anything sensible i.e. reality as understood by human perception within the paradigm of scientific (in its broad sense) inquiry. Would that be roughly correct in your view?