Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Atla]

You're a presumptive imbecile, a disagreement addict, who's hallucinating an enemy so that he can have a little bit of fun attacking others. A very pathetic form of existence.

As for

X means the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal.

If we just put X there, most people (including me) will agree in three seconds that X can be seen as objective. Not much to add to that, case closed. Imo not really a theory that needed years of your attention.

[Magnus Anderson]

We have to distinguish between types of "rightness" here.

What the above definition indicates is instrumental 'rightness,' which is only the utility of an option in attaining one's goal. But if that goal is "maximal murder" or "effective embezzling," then it's not a 'righness' that is moral. It's effective, but for an evil end.

Nothing about instrumental rightness guarantees moral rightness. A guillotine is the "right" instrument for removing many heads in a short time, perhaps; it might "help a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time". But is chopping off heads "morally right" merely because it works? Or is chopping off heads still objectively morally wrong?

I think you're going to say the latter, are you not?

You can make the word "right" more abstract by making it relative to a goal that is not necessarily the highest goal.

For example, you can say the word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps some person attain some goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time."

You can, then, talk about different types of rightness depending on the chosen goal. You can, for example, say that moral rightness is relative to a goal that is captured by the statement, "Inflict the least amount of damage to other living beings." That's all perfectly fine.

The problem is that the purpose of life is to attain one's highest goal ( regardless of what that highest goal is. ) Every decision maker has a goal that is at the highest position in the hierarchy of goals. Otherwise, he has no basis upon which to make decisions and is therefore not a decision maker. And all decisions are ultimately made with the aim to attain the highest goal. In other words, all other goals that decision makers are pursuing are freely chosen sub-goals that they hope will help them attain the highest goal.

So the most important type of rightness would be the one that pertains to attaining the highest goal -- I call that type of rightness "absolute rightness". Thus, if what is morally wrong is absolutely right, then doing what is morally wrong is absolutely right, i.e. it's what the person should do. Others may like it or not, but that's simply the reality of it.

In reality, taking care of other people is not merely morally right, but also absolutely right, so it's not really an issue that many people make it out to be.

[Magnus Anderson]

If we just put X there, most people (including me) will agree in three seconds that X can be seen as objective. Not much to add to that, case closed. Imo not really a theory that needed years of your attention.

As I said, you're a presumptive imbecile.

You've joined the ranks of Skepdick and Age.

[Magnus Anderson]

Every "ought" statement has an equivalent "is" statement.

For example, "Humans ought to eat" is equivalent to "The best decision for humans is to eat".

Given that every "is" statement, insofar it is a proper statement, describes something that exists, it follows that "ought" statements, insofar they are proper statements, do the same -- they describe reality.

( A statement is said to be proper if it's propositional, i.e. if it has a valid reference to a portion of reality and if it's representing that portion of reality with a meaningful symbol. )

Still, "ought" statements can only be statements of value, i.e. statements about what is good for one or more people. They cannot be statements of something that is not a value, e.g. statements such as "The pot is hot."

The distinction between factual and value statements remains but only in the sense that so-called factual statements are merely non-value statements. If by "fact" we mean "something that is the case", both types of statements represent facts.

Still, we can make a distinction between objective and subjective facts. A fact is said to be objective if it's mind-independent. Otherwise, it is subjective.

We can also make a distinction between objective and subjective statements. An objective statement is a statement about objective facts. The opposite is a subjective statement.

Factual statements can be objective or subjective. That's obvious. But what about value statements? They too can be objective or subjective. It all depends on whether we're talking about what is good for an actual person or what is good for a possible person. If a value statement is about an actual person, it's necessarily mind dependent. What's good for an actual person depends on the highest goal of that person, which is in the mind of that person, so it's mind dependent. On the other hand, if a value statement is about a possible person, it's necessarily mind independent. What's good for a possible person does not depend on any existing mind, so it's mind independent.

[Immanuel Can]

We have to distinguish between types of "rightness" here.

What the above definition indicates is instrumental 'rightness,' which is only the utility of an option in attaining one's goal. But if that goal is "maximal murder" or "effective embezzling," then it's not a 'righness' that is moral. It's effective, but for an evil end.

Nothing about instrumental rightness guarantees moral rightness. A guillotine is the "right" instrument for removing many heads in a short time, perhaps; it might "help a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time". But is chopping off heads "morally right" merely because it works? Or is chopping off heads still objectively morally wrong?

I think you're going to say the latter, are you not?

You can make the word "right" more abstract by making it relative to a goal that is not necessarily the highest goal.

"Highest"? Well, if you invoke that term, it invites the question, "highest in what scale?" It implies that "high" is already established, and that everybody agrees what the "highest" goal is...

But do they? What evidence do you have that people all regard the same goal as "highest," or that they use the same scale?

For example, you can say the word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps some person attain some goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time."

Well, I don't. You did, of course, as the words are your own: but I wouldn't. I was pointing out that such a definition is merely instrumental, not moral.

You can, then, talk about different types of rightness depending on the chosen goal. You can, for example, say that moral rightness is relative to a goal that is captured by the statement, "Inflict the least amount of damage to other living beings." That's all perfectly fine.

But people don't agree that's the goal, or that it's the "highest" value. Some thing the "collective good" is so high that it justifies inflicting confiscation, torture, gulags, and death on other people. Some say that extending the realm of "Allah's" authority is higher than any bad to be found in killing infidels. So people don't at all agree that what you and I might take to be "highest" is really the "highest" sort of moral goal.

...and all decisions are ultimately made with the aim to attain the highest goal...

Well, relative to SOME goal, at least, if not the highest one. But we're still left with the problem of proving that what we regard as a "high" goal really, objectively, is the "highest." And how do we go about that?

... taking care of other people is not merely morally right, but also absolutely right,...

But again, people are far from agreed on this point. You and I might accept it, but we owe anybody else a rational explanation of why we're right. Because plenty of people think that "taking care" of others might involve things you and I deplore, like, say, "purifying the race" (Nazism) or "eliminating the genetically inferior" (Social Darwinism) or encouraging potential mothers to murder their babies in the womb (abortion)..or taking their enfeebled elders out of the world (euthanasia).

[Age]

Morality as a set of beliefs is subjective.

Morality as a set of behavioral laws is subjective.

If 'morality' is not about mis/behavior, to you, then what, exactly, is 'morality' about, exactly?

Morality as a set of specific laws is subjective.

Morality as a set of general laws is objective.

What is 'it', exactly, that makes 'specific laws' be 'subjective' only, to you, from what makes 'general laws' be 'objective' only, to you?

It's the same pattern one can observe with many other concepts, such as the concept of color.

Colors as visual perceptions of light wavelength ( "qualia" ) are subjective.

Colors as numerical perceptions of light wavelength are subjective.

Colors as light wavelengths are objective.

Colors as surface types are objective.

But, in all cases who and/or what is doing the 'seeing' and 'recognizing'?

you really do come across, here, as just 'another one' "magnus anderson" who comes with 'already held beliefs', from which you then 'try to' find and use words in 'some way', which you hope will back up and support your 'already held onto fixed belief'.

Now, what you are 'trying to' get to and prove True, here, (just like "fairy", "lacewing", "seeds", and "attofishpi", for example, 'try to do'), is actually in regards to what is actually irrefutably True, and which every one could accept and agree with. However, and just like these 'other ones', you are using words, and language, which unfortunately can and is putting you people 'further behind' instead of 'further ahead'.

As I mentioned previously, 'morality is actually objective', which I can show and prove in a way that no one could refute. But, and again, the Right words just need to be used.

[Age]

If it actually meant something like "a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong held by someone", then morality would clearly be subjective, since beliefs exist within minds, and if something exists within a mind, removing all minds from existence would also remove that thing from existence. But is that what the word actually means?

Yes that's what the word really means.

Just like "Manus anderson" does, 'this one' known as "atla", here, also believes, absolutely, that its own personal and subjective definition, which 'they' use for the meaning of a word, is the 'real one'.

Which is absolutely hilarious to watch, and observe play out, here.

The term "morality" means "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".

To avoid confusion, maybe think you could rename that to "morality-proper".

What is the actual difference between 'morality-proper' from just 'morality', itself, to you, "atla"?

(Not that 'I' would expect 'you' to answer, and clarify, here.)

[Age]

Yes that's what the word really means.

Often but not always.

If the word "morality" denotes "what one thinks is right", what word, if any, denotes "what is right"?

'Know'.

The word, 'Morality', like the words 'Truth', and, 'Right', are not 'denoted' by just what you individual human beings 'think'. The word, 'know', instead, denotes 'What is True', and, 'What is Right', in Life.

And, how 'objectivity', itself, is found, by the way, is also not in 'the way' that you have been 'denoting', and believing, here.

If the word "morality" denotes "a set of beliefs concerning what's right", what word, if any, denotes what these beliefs represent?

Again, the 'knowing' word.

The, 'belief', word denotes 'that', which you do not yet actually 'know', for sure, and/or can not yet 'prove', irrefutably so, for sure.

( They must be representing something if they are truly beliefs. )

The words, 'truly beliefs', and/or, 'true beliefs' have been misleading, fooling, and deceiving you human beings for years now, well since their inception into the "english" language at least.

The commonly used term is "objective morality".

What none of you human beings, here, have yet considered is that 'morality' can be BOTH 'objective' and 'subjective'. Just like most of you have never even considered that 'free will', and, 'determinism', 'nature' and 'nurture', and 'creation' and 'evolution' BOTH exist in all cases.

But the very reason why you human beings, very rarely, if ever, consider 'these things' is because of through a completely Wrong 'education system' you were/are taught to 'debate', or in other words taught to 'pick " a side", and then fight for "that side" '.

The trouble or issue, here, however is that in 'Reality', Itself, there are no "sides", so there, literally, is no "one-side" nor "another-side". In all cases they BOTH exist.

The simple word "morality" is also used.
It's not a rare thing for words to have multiple meanings.

Great. Now, why do both of 'you', here, believe that 'the meanings', and/or 'definitions', which you are both providing is the 'true or right one'?

In your case, you seem to be using the term "morality-proper".

What is the actual difference between the two different terms 'morality-proper', from just 'morality', itself, to you, exactly?

A middle ground would be to use the word "morality" for both but to add a qualifier when you want to be specific. "Subjective morality" would thus be "a set of beliefs concerning what's right". And "objective morality" would be "what is right".

At least 'we' are (very, very, very slowly) getting somewhere.

So, once again, how to learn and understand, 'What is actually, (objectively) Right, and True, in Life', and distinguish 'that' from, 'What is just, (subjectively), right, and true, in Life is, actually, a very simple and easy straightforward process. Which all of you human beings can do, here. That is, once you just learn HOW to.

[Age]

Yeah English isn't my first language

I can see that.

What made you think that a belief actually has to represent something objectively real? Wouldn't be much of a belief then, would it?

The statement "Beliefs represent an aspect of reality" means "Beliefs are about something in the world". It does NOT mean "Beliefs TRULY represent an aspect of reality". It's not saying that beliefs are necessarily true.

"The Earth is flat" is an example of a belief that represents the shape of the Earth but in a way that is not accurate..

Which is 'now' another great time to 'point out', again, through and from the clarifying question, 'Why then 'assume', and then 'believe', some thing is true, before you have obtained the irrefutable proof and actual fact for, first'?

A belief is an attitude that a proposition is true.

And in relation to a proposition that has not yet been proved true.

A proposition is an idea that a portion of reality ( "subject" ) is such and such ( "predicate". ) If the subject is lacking, then the idea is not a proposition. If it's not a proposition, it has no truth value. And if it has no truth value, noone can believe it to be true.

Once again, here, 'we' can see more examples of just continually 'trying to' find words and use them in a 'particular way' in order to 'try to' prove one's already obtained and already held 'belief' to be true.

Instead of obtaining actual proof first, and then thus 'knowing' what is True and/or Right, in Life, 'these people' preferred to 'believe' things first, and then 'try to' prove that 'their beliefs' are what is true and right, in Life.

Which, as can be clearly seen, a totally backwards way to live.

Just like assuming things, and/or then creating 'theories' about what 'could be' true and/or right, in Life, and then going 'looking for' things that back up and verify or refute the 'assumption' or 'theory', is another totally backwards way to live.

Why not just start at and with what is actually irrefutably True, and/or Right, and then just remain open and 'looking at' only what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, from then on, only?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some tribal people from some jungles may not perceive 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'. To them wooden drawers are merely pieces of wood based on their sight and touch.

That does not mean there are no balls, drawers and blackness out there.

It merely means that some tribal people aren't able to perceive those ( or at least, correctly map them using English language. )

That there are people out there who are not able to perceive X has never been a valid argument against the existence of X.

MA: "or at least, correctly map them using English language."
And what is 'English Language' [or whatever mode of information and conditions] conditioned upon if not the human conditions?

E=MC2 represents reality, it is not language but mathematics & physics which are both conditioned upon the human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely mind independent.

Within humans ""All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different due to different cognitive perspective and abilities.

What would be totally different? The perceived truth value of the statement or its truth value? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I disagree.

"People disagree" has never been a valid argument for truth relativism.

Both the perceived truth value of the statement or its truth value itself are conditioned by the human conditions.

You may argue the color wavelength are the same, but that is conditioned upon the science-physics FS and nowhere else. The science-FS has its specific constitution of principles and assumptions.

The word "color" denotes the type of surface an object has.
The dress in question has a particular surface, and thus a particular color, regardless of what anyone thinks. ( The dress is blue. I can perceive it as yellow too but that's an optical illusion. )

I mentioned earlier, what is color is conditioned by the human conditions at the perception level.

But at the theoretical and science-physics human system, whatever the color they have a common denominator, i.e. wavelengths within a range.
But the truth of 'wavelengths' are determined by the human-based science-physics framework and system, thus ultimately conditioned upon the human conditions.

So, what is true has to be conditioned to some human-based FS.

That does not follow.
There are trees out there even when noone is looking at them.
Those trees would exist even if every living being died.
Whether you realize it or not, what you're claiming is that, if we removed all minds from existence, the entire galaxies would cease to exist.

How are you going to prove that?
"People have different opinions" is not a proof.
"Perception is language laden" is not a proof.
"People use different languages to map reality" is not a proof.
QM is not a proof.

QM is not a proof? it is a scientific-physics proof, and it is even mathematical given the equations involved.

Whether you realize it or not, what you're claiming is that, if we removed all minds from existence, the entire galaxies would cease to exist.

If there are no humans, yes, the entire galaxies would cease to exist as it emerged, realized, perceived and known by humans via their human conditions.
No humans = no human reality and the only reality is the human reality of which the gold standard is the scientific based reality.

If you think there is a non-human-based-reality, what is that? faith based God?
As Kant argued, there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human mind' there are only things-conditioned-by-the-human-conditions.
There is no way, you can escape, whatever the reality that emerged, realized, perceived and known is conditioned by the human conditions.

You are driven by primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand.
The cognitive dissonance therefrom is very painful but you have to overcome it with deep philosophy.

There you go again with the ad hominems.
I can say the same about you. And maybe even worse. But how constructive would that be?

Noted, correction needed.

Your views are that of philosophical realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is not realistic nor tenable at all.
Philosophical realists are driven primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand, i.e. know thyselves.

The final position with a human-based reality is just to be, being-human and don't speculate beyond what is human-based reality, i.e. scientific being the gold standard.

When one speculate a driven by psychology, it leads to the la la land of God and to the extreme a god that commands believers to kill non-believers merely just because they disbelief.

Whatever is conditioned within the human-conditioned and meet the conditions as constituted within the framework and system is objective; the human-based scientific system as the gold standard of objectivity. [say indexed at 100/100]

When we model a moral system that is as as objective as the gold standard of science, we can rate it [with credible criteria] like 80/100, then we can claim such a qualified human-based moral system is objective.

[Age]

No, the subject is God. Okay what do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

What do you gain from practicing lazy reading, disagreement addiction and nitpickery?

Why do you claim that one is 'nit picking' just for 'picking' and 'pointing out' 'the errors' they see in 'another's speech or writings'?

Why does the one who makes claims not want others to find, notice, and point out 'the errors' in 'their ways' and/or in 'their words', exactly?

1. If there is an 'error' in one's words, then just expect it to be 'picked up'. After all 'we' are in a philosophy forum, here.

2. Just because another may well not be 'reading' in the exact same way you do, does not necessarily mean that it 'the other' who is so-called 'lazy reading'.

3.Just because 'another' does not agree with your words, this, by itself, does not mean that 'they' have some so-called 'disagreement addiction'. After all what will be discovered, eventually by you human beings as well, is that actually there is absolutely no actual thing at all to disagree over. However, that you are all disagreeing with each other, here, in one form of another, is very obvious and very clear to see and recognize, as well. you people are, however, only disagreeing over assumptions and beliefs. Which, obviously, if an assumption or belief is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then any other opposing assumption or belief would have to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. So, why not just have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion, until the actual irrefutable, and thus agreed upon and accept, Truth is uncovered and comes-to-light?

Try to understand what your interlocutor is saying instead of constantly finding reasons to disagree and dismiss.

Once again, it is always 'the other' who is either not 'try to understand', or, who is not 'being understandable'. It all depends on when one has 'the perspective'. These people when 'reading' and they do not understand, then it is just, automatically, 'the writers' fault. And, conversely, when these people are 'writing', then it is just, automatically, 'the readers' fault, if they do not understand.

Very, very, rarely did adult human beings, in the days when this was being, actually even just 'accepted responsibility', for what they did or did not do, let alone actually ever 'took responsibility'.

And understand that I didn't invent the philosophical concepts of subject and predicate that I use ( which are not the same as the grammatical ones you keep confusing them with. )

And even if I did, what's the problem given that I explained what I mean by them?

What the actual 'problem', here, is, 'Why do you expect every one to just accept and agree with what you mean?'

I didn't even use them as the primary terms. The primary terms were "the referenced portion of reality" and "the idea that the referenced portion of reality is such and such".

Again, 'this' is just 'circular reasoning'.

First you would have to, obviously, prove what 'reality', itself, is. Instead of just that you already have, 'the referenced portion of reality'.

In fact, my initial claim was, "A belief must be a representation of something that exists in order to be a belief." That claim didn't even employ the primary terms.

But, it was already pointed out to you that there is no necessity that a 'belief' 'must be' a representation of some thing that exists, (in order to be a belief).

What's your excuse for misunderstanding that statement given that it's written in plain English?

But just because one points out the Wrongness, or error, in that statement, and belief, of yours does not instantly mean that 'another' has misunderstood 'your statement'.

Do you have an excuse for misunderstanding how and why 'that statement' could be Wrong?

If the referenced portion of reality in the statement "God exists" is God, and if God does not exist, then the referenced portion of reality is missing and the statement is not a propositional one. That means it has no truth value. It's truth value is "undefined", as some will say. Of course, people can still think it's true or false, and in that sense, they can still believe it to be true or false, but only because they do not understand it.

How can you claim to know what some so-called 'referenced portion of reality' is, when you do not yet even know what 'reality', itself, is?

And, what is even more obvious if that absolutely any one even suggested that 'God could exist'', then the first thing I would be wondering about is, 'What even is this 'God' thing, exactly, which 'this' one is even on about, here?'

Are you able to inform 'the readers', here, "magnus anderson", of who and/or what this 'God' thing is, exactly, when you write, 'God exists', or even if you chose to write, 'God does not exist'?

If no, then why introduce things that you, literally, do not even know what you are talking about, exactly?

If the same applies to moral beliefs, then moral beliefs do not have truth value either. Their truth value, in that scenario, is "undefined".

So, what, exactly, is 'it' that differentiates 'moral beliefs' from 'moral laws', to you?

I have yet to see you provide an example of a 'moral law', here, so will you provide at least one, now?

[Age]

What do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

Don't quote the post you're responding to if it's immediately above yours and it's longer than a sentence or two. You're making it difficult for people to read the thread.

Don't ask questions that are loaded. Don't ask them repeatedly.

Try to stay on-topic. Try to understand what's being said. Ask for clarification if needed.

But, doing so does not mean that you will get any.

Feel free to ask for reasoning.

Let 'us' see how 'this' works out.

When I say and write, ' 'morality' means 'that', which people do for fun ', what is your reasoning for claiming that there is no true and false and no truth value in what I presented?

Feel free to present your own arguments against what's being said.

But don't be a lazy, whiny, disagreement addicted, nitpicking bum.

If you can't do that, feel free to leave this thread. You're not welcome here.

[Age]

Says the guy who starts with completely changing the meaning of morality.

That's not true. The word "morality" has several different meanings. One of them is "a set of beliefs about what's right". That's probably the most common one. The other one is "what is right". That one is most commonly used in philosophy.

Google's English dictionary seems to agree.

morality
/məˈralɪti/
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

The main definition is neutral, neither subjective nor objective.

The second one is subjective.

The third one is objective.

But, the third one is only 'objective' from your own personal meaning of the 'objective' word. Which, let 'us' not forget, is not even true and false, to you, anyway.

So, how can you logically reason that some thing is 'objective' when your own meaning for the word 'objective' is not even nor false to begin with?

What's that if not disagreement addiction?

Nonsense.

Even if I'm using the word "morality" in a non-standard way, that's not enough for my OP to cause disagreements on its own, especially if we take into account that I explained how I'm using the word and noted that many other people use it in a different way.

So, I will now use, 'morality', (in a non-standard way), and I will specifically explain how I am using 'that word', that is, because 'I am the writer', 'I' can choose how to use 'that word', just as 'you' claim 'I' can, and I will note that many other people use 'that word' in a different way, (which will obviously mean absolutely nothing, here, anyway).

Now, 'morality', means, ' 'that', which people do for fun '.

Unless you 'now' want to contradict "yourself", again, what I just did, here, is 'not disagreement addiction', correct?

Most careful readers will understand what I'm talking about.

I will, again, suggest that you just say what you mean, and just mean what you say. That way people will not have to assume what you are 'talking about', exactly.

Those who are left confused will ask for clarification.

Once more, but even if and when 'we' do, 'we' are not guaranteed that you will even answer, and clarify, correct?

Those who misunderstand will be corrected.

Are 'we' allowed to correct your own misunderstandings, here?

Or, is another one of your beliefs is that you do not have any misunderstandings, here?

[Age]

None of those definitions are objective, obviously.

The first one isn't subjective either. It's neutral. That's what I said. The fact that is neutral means that it can be used to denote objective morality.

The second one is subjective. That's also what I said.

But the third one is objective. The extent to which an action is right or wrong has nothing to do with what anyone believes. What is right is right regardless of what anyone thinks is right.

Do you yet know what is even, 'what is right'?

And, even how to obtain the knowledge of, 'what is Right, and, what is Wrong, in Life'?

Please do not reply with some thing like, 'It does not matter'. I am just asking you another Truly open straight forward clarifying question, for a Truly open and honest answer, and clarification, only.

I will remind you that lazy nay-sayers are not welcome in this thread.

I will also remind you that you should stop abusing the quote button.

And none of them take the morality out of morality, and replace it with the attainment of one's highest goal.

They don't say it explicitly but they very much do so implicitly.

The word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time".

But, some one's 'highest goal' might not align with 'what is actually Right, in Life. So, so choosing some thing, which helps one to attain 'their highest goal' might, not be 'right' at all, especially in regards to what the 'morality' word is in relation to, exactly, to others, here.

[Age]

You're a presumptive imbecile, a disagreement addict, who's hallucinating an enemy so that he can have a little bit of fun attacking others. A very pathetic form of existence.

As for

X means the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal.

If we just put X there, most people (including me) will agree in three seconds that X can be seen as objective. Not much to add to that, case closed. Imo not really a theory that needed years of your attention.

But, as you have been 'shown', but may not have yet 'noticed' and 'seen', replacing X with 'morality' is insanity, to say the least.