Ethics

[Mudhammam]

That is a ridiculous standard, both because it can never be met, due to the fact that there is probably nothing upon which everyone agrees (ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?), and also because it is generally irrelevant to what is true.  Agreement does not mean that one has reached the truth.

I'm more or less saying that in other fields of inquiry we are given a set of axioms that cannot be denied less we fall into self-refutation. If defining "goodness" or "rightness" was actually in any way comparable to determining facts such as the shape of the earth, we would be living in a much different world.

Also, "mind-independent" does not mean the same thing as "objective."  "People have minds" is an objective statement (whether it is true or false), and it clearly deals with minds, so it is not "mind-independent."

"People have minds" is an objective statement because its truth value doesn't depend on any single person's biases, feelings, or interpretations, and in that sense, is "mind-independent."

"Health and wealth are the greatest goods," on the other hand, is a claim of which the truth depends entirely on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it.

Now, if you want to use the phrase "ethical objectivism" in a nonstandard way, I cannot stop you from doing so, but if you want to effectively communicate with others, it is good to keep to standard usage of expressions as much as possible.

To clarify, I'm speaking of ethical theories that purport moral statements to contain the same value of "truthiness" as claims of objective fact, as in the examples pertaining to beer that you provided, or the three-dimensional geometry of planets.

As for the concept of solvable, you are going to have a very hard time determining whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday.  Your inability to solve the problem (or, if you prefer, your inability to know the truth or falsehood of the statement) has no bearing on whether it is true or false.  Likewise, if Bentham is correct, it is entirely possible that you may never know it.

Right. My point is that nobody presumes this is the case when it comes to ethical disagreements. Everyone then becomes an expert at what ought to be.

Ethics and religion are two separate areas of thought, which you should know from having read Plato's Euthyphro.

What gave you the impression that god or religion even entered my mind here?