I might not be following, but let that not stop me from adding a comment.
Things can be objectively good, but the context in which things are judged good cannot. Something is good which achieves or contributes to a good goal; and that good goal is judged to be a good goal because it is necessary for a greater, also good, goal. Things obviously required for life might be considered objectively good, since the desire to live is a goal applied to mankind before it even was mankind-- i.e. the nature of evolution itself-- to allow persistent patterns to persist-- may be called an objective morality.
However, even with this, you cannot transcend that context: the context in which humanity, life, and the process of evolution on Earth matter. You cannot really say that existence matters-- of individual entities or even of the universe.
I suspect there is a religious vestige in the idea that ANYTHING is objectively good. There is the assumption that since the universe (maybe deterministically) tended to arrive at the existence of life, then it was an objective process that led to the existence of subjective perspectives, and that ultimately, all morality is therefore object in some sense. However, is it good for the universe to exist rather than not to exist? Yes, we are tempted to answer-- because this was necessary for the existence of life, which we've already established to be good.
But there's a vicious circle here, isn't there?
Things can be objectively good, but the context in which things are judged good cannot. Something is good which achieves or contributes to a good goal; and that good goal is judged to be a good goal because it is necessary for a greater, also good, goal. Things obviously required for life might be considered objectively good, since the desire to live is a goal applied to mankind before it even was mankind-- i.e. the nature of evolution itself-- to allow persistent patterns to persist-- may be called an objective morality.
However, even with this, you cannot transcend that context: the context in which humanity, life, and the process of evolution on Earth matter. You cannot really say that existence matters-- of individual entities or even of the universe.
I suspect there is a religious vestige in the idea that ANYTHING is objectively good. There is the assumption that since the universe (maybe deterministically) tended to arrive at the existence of life, then it was an objective process that led to the existence of subjective perspectives, and that ultimately, all morality is therefore object in some sense. However, is it good for the universe to exist rather than not to exist? Yes, we are tempted to answer-- because this was necessary for the existence of life, which we've already established to be good.
But there's a vicious circle here, isn't there?
