Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

And from an evolutionary standpoint it makes far more sense than anything theists claim; otherwise we'd be perfectly fine with slavery instead of instinctively feeling that it's an abhorrent thing. You have to be indoctrinated or sociopathic to think otherwise (or both). Deference to authority also makes more sense in an evolutionary sense because otherwise we would ONLY consider one authority to be viable and yet it can go in any direction imaginable, not towards the alleged 'one true god' and its will.

OFC it makes more sense than fairies.  It's hard to make less sense.  Deference to authority is, to some extent, our evolutionary inheritance in that we belong to a genus that has elaborate and unmistakable displays and relationships surrounding dominance.  However, a moral standard can both justify or delegitimize an authority.  An objective morality standard would do so demonstrably. 

You just can't remove subjective aspects from it so you have to take that into account. What act is worse than another, whose life is worth more than another if you can only save one or the other, etc., the shitty gritty things we don't deal with as often, thankfully. So while that removes the idea of an absolute authority (which makes no sense anyway) it doesn't render the whole thing irrelevant or incoherent whatsoever. It's all that works with whatever little we have and we don't have anything else that can actually be demonstrated to work in the same consistent way.

An objective moral schema doesn't remove the idea of an absolute authority, in a meaningful sense it becomes one.  This is -why- religions seek to conflate the character of their gods with an objective moral standard.  I don't think that the things you consider to be subjective -are- subjective.  I think that -we- are subjective agents attempting to manufacture moral statements by reference to purportedly objective standards.  What's worse...murder or manslaughter?  Why?

I'm referring to when they try to co-opt this and take credit for it, so their appeal to authority fails where the evolutionary explanation does not.

Do we become the absolute authorities? That doesn't seem to make sense. That seems like a recipe for falling under an absolute authority which in and of itself is not very helpful when it comes to preventing harm. Having an objective ideal is fine but imbuing ourselves with the power rather than the idea is somewhat arrogant and that should, according to the axiom, be avoided for what it can lead to. You could call it an absolute STANDARD we're aiming for (maximizing well-being and minimizing harm) but the agents involved? I don't feel comfortable going that far.

And yes, we use objective standards to make our case for why this is this and that is that, but if we're using the same objective criteria and coming to different conclusions (your example is inappropriate because the two things are not directly comparable; I would cite the sinking ship dilemma here instead) then that's subjective, is it not? Also when it's a question of degrees, even when the action is agreed upon, is a subjective measure. I don't understand why you keep trying to dismiss that, it seems odd.