What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

To say that the goals are objective is to say that something in the Universe is intrinsically goal-oriented.  But how would material interactions be said to be right or wrong in any regard?  What would such a Universal goal even look like?

A goal doesn't need to be universal for there to be goals in the universe, or for those goals to be objective, or for a failure to reach those goals to be objectively assessed.  

Goals are by their very nature subjective. Whether something has met the goal may be objective, but that does not make the goal itself objective. You are measuring the wrong thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

A goal doesn't need to be universal for there to be goals in the universe, or for those goals to be objective, or for a failure to reach those goals to be objectively assessed.  

Goals are by their very nature subjective.  Whether something has met the goal may be objective, but that does not make the goal itself objective.  You are measuring the wrong thing.

You must mean that consequentialists are measuring the wrong thing...but, ofc, that would be a sloppy claim.  Consequentialists could be measuring the success or failure of an act to meet an objective moral standard, or a state of affairs in accordance with the same. I don't personally think that consequentialist ethics are enough, in and of themselves (a point I mentioned earlier)..mostly because they have to have something to measure those consequences by.

So, as examples...some consequentialist schema might be measuring against the success of a society. But is the success of society a relevant moral metric? Maybe, but an evil society might be the most successful, in the end, and measuring the success of that society would not tell uis wether or not that society was morally good no matter how good it established them at perserverence or wealth or what have you. The same can be said of life..and survival.

[Angrboda]

Goals are by their very nature subjective.  Whether something has met the goal may be objective, but that does not make the goal itself objective.  You are measuring the wrong thing.

You must mean that consequentialists are measuring the wrong thing...but, ofc, that would be a sloppy claim.  Consequentialists could be measuring the success or failure of an act to meet an objective moral standard, or a state of affairs in accordance with the same.  I don't personally think that consequentialist ethics are enough, in and of themselves (a point I mentioned earlier)..mostly because they have to have something to measure those consequences by.

No, that's not what I mean. Goals are a product of intention, and only minds have intention, so goals are necessarily the product of minds, that makes them necessarily subjective.

(And yes, I know your objection about subjective awareness of objective things. That doesn't apply here because the intentions themselves are not a feature of the universe. Goals themselves do not exist out there. Feel free to show how one derives a goal from the properties of a rock.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Not in any sense meaningful to ethics. -Everything- you know is the product of a mind, unless this makes everything subjective....well.....

Q. Is the goal of football, to score more points than the other team..subjective?

[Angrboda]

Not in any sense meaningful to ethics.  -Everything- you know is the product of a mind, unless this makes everything subjective....well.....

Already answered. Show me a goal existing in the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Many goals exist in the universe.  I can point to the goal you have of out arguing me on some simple point, awfully quick, huh?  That exists, it's here in the universe.

[Angrboda]

Many goals exist in the universe.  I can point to the goal you have of out arguing me on some simple point, awfully quick, huh?  That exists, it's here in the universe.

It exists here in my mind as an arbitrary fact of my mind, that doesn't make it exist out there or make it objective. Now you're just being disingenuous. Fallacy of contextotomy. See, I can be a dick, too.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that it's arbitrary, but existing in here and out there is a bit pedantic, as you exist in the universe too.  You asked a sloppy question.

[Angrboda]

I doubt that it's arbitrary, but existing in here and out there is a bit pedantic, as you exist in the universe too.  You asked a sloppy question.

Quit being a dick and point to a goal that actually objectively exists. Since existing in here or out there was the entire point, it was far from pedantic. My question wasn't sloppy. It was precise in context. That you chose to ignore context to make a non-point is your problem, not mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

A primer on mind dependence as it relates to moral theory.

Mind dependence, in moral theory, is not a comment on whether or not some proposition x exists in a mind.  It is a comment on whether or not the thing to which it refer exists -solely- as an artifact of the mind that possesses it.  

All propositions are "mind dependent" in a sense meaningless to moral theory, in that all moral propositions exist in our minds.  This brute fact does not establish that they are neccessarrily subjective as a moral theorist is referring to subjectivity.  Any moral proposition that exists in our minds but -also- refer to some fact of a matter beyond that mind is, in moral theory, an objectivist fact of the matter x.  

So, two propositions.  X is bad because I don't like it.  X is bad because it hurts people.  Both propositions exist as a product of minds, but only one of them is necesarrily subjective (again, as moral theorists are discussing it, it's objectively true that the first persons opinion is that they don;t like something).  The other may be, insomuch as the person proposing it has gotten that fact wrong...but if that thing x does hurt people..regardless of whether or not our subject was aware of it or cared, it would still hurt people.