Philosophy Now Forum

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Then this part:

I am not chiefly concerned herein to defend any particular moral claims, although I shall mention some uncontroversial moral truths for illustrative purposes. Rather, my concern is to show that questions of value have objective, rational answers but not to provide those answers. The latter is a task for another time.

Sort of reminds me of those here who explore morality up in the theoretical/technical clouds. Basically -- if I do say so myself -- they argue that only when we have pinned down the objective manner in which to define the words used in the arguments can we bring them down to Earth and explore the extent to which the definitions and deductions are applicable to actual moral and political conflagrations.

Alas, however, on page after page after page after page, the task of bringing them all down to our day to day social, political and economic interactions never seems appropriate.

Aside, of course, from the objectivists among us. Oh, sure, they'll bring their moral convictions down to Earth, but...but only to insist others had better toe the line or else.

"Objectivism" and "relativism"

"Objectivism" denotes the thesis that morality is objective. Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective. Relativism holds that morality is relative.

What we "hold" here [some argue] is entirely interchangeable in a wholly determined universe. And even to the extent we do possess some degree of autonomy, others argue, morality remains rooted existentially in dasein.

...I am interested in distinguishing moral objectivism from its denial; therefore, I assume that "relative" and "subjective" both mean "non-objective". If they do not already mean this, then I stipulate that meaning hereby. There are a number of people who believe moral relativism so defined.

He's interested in this. But only to the extent he does steer of actual moral claims? We'll have to wait until he provides us with what he construes to be controversial moral truths.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:46 am Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Then this part:

I am not chiefly concerned herein to defend any particular moral claims, although I shall mention some uncontroversial moral truths for illustrative purposes. Rather, my concern is to show that questions of value have objective, rational answers but not to provide those answers. The latter is a task for another time.

Sort of reminds me of those here who explore morality up in the theoretical/technical clouds. Basically -- if I do say so myself -- they argue that only when we have pinned down the objective manner in which to define the words used in the arguments can we bring them down to Earth and explore the extent to which the definitions and deductions are applicable to actual moral and political conflagrations.

Alas, however, on page after page after page after page, the task of bringing them all down to our day to day social, political and economic interactions never seems appropriate.

Aside, of course, from the objectivists among us. Oh, sure, they'll bring their moral convictions down to Earth, but...but only to insist others had better toe the line or else.

"Objectivism" and "relativism"

"Objectivism" denotes the thesis that morality is objective. Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective. Relativism holds that morality is relative.

What we "hold" here [some argue] is entirely interchangeable in a wholly determined universe. And even to the extent we do possess some degree of autonomy, others argue, morality remains rooted existentially in dasein.

...I am interested in distinguishing moral objectivism from its denial; therefore, I assume that "relative" and "subjective" both mean "non-objective". If they do not already mean this, then I stipulate that meaning hereby. There are a number of people who believe moral relativism so defined.

He's interested in this. But only to the extent he does steer of actual moral claims? We'll have to wait until he provides us with what he construes to be controversial moral truths.

The subjective is so pervasive that 'objectivity' is impossible without criteria.
Human nature, the several avatars of God, and the several pantheons of pagan gods are criteria.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:01 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:47 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 1:10 am

Start here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

Note what the clique/claque there have to say about morality and biological imperatives. Or, here, run it by Alexis Jacobi and his ilk.

Or sure, either Elon Trump or Don Musk in the White House.

Only this time focus in on how folks of their ilk defend their own moral philosophy given particular sets of circumstances.

On the other hand, yes, human biology is one of the most crucial components of the either/or world.

It's just that the KT ilk are adamant here: if you don't/won't share their own "my way or the highway" value judgments pertaining to genes and memes, at the very least you might be banned from the boards there.

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

Then the part where someone there -- or here? -- starts a thread entitled "What the Nazis got right about the Holocaust".

Sorry. But I am at a loss to know how to respond to this post. Was there anything you wished to state about establishing a morality on one's common biology of species?

What we need to do then is discuss moral relativism as it pertains to particular moral conflagrations...such as stem cell research, capital punishment, gender roles, human sexuality, animal right, gun control, etc.

Or, sure, I am not understanding the point you are making correctly. That's why I always strive to bring theoretical assessments of this sort [pertaining to morality] down to Earth.

For example, how would a biologically based morality be relevant regarding abortion? After all, biologically, only women can become pregnant.

Biologically conscious subjective values are all the values there are. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The protection of the biological self is the proper subject of morality. Morality becomes complicated when the wellbeing of one organism conflicts with that of another. I believe the author Sam Harris focuses upon this, and states science is the best vehicle for establishing a proper universal morality based upon the survival and wellbeing of the self, the expanded concept of the self takes into account all selves. Your right of course, practical applications are the best way to work things out, if the focus subject of biological consciousness is kept in mind. "After all, only women can become pregnant." Not according to some nutsy feminists.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:47 pm
Biologically conscious subjective values are all the values there are. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The protection of the biological self is the proper subject of morality. Morality becomes complicated when the wellbeing of one organism conflicts with that of another.

Exactly. Then the part where the moral objectivists among us insist it is their own -- and only their own -- moral philosophy that reflects the optimal manner in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from evil. Hundreds of hopelessly conflicting religious and secular denominations "out there" all claiming that unless you become "one of them" you can never hope to achieve enlightenment. Let alone attain immortality and salvation.

Take all the moral and political conflagrations that have rent the human species now for thousands of years. If there really is a deontological assessment -- philosophical or scientific -- able to resolve these conflicting goods, how do you explain the fact that virtually none of them have been?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:47 pmI believe the author Sam Harris focuses upon this, and states science is the best vehicle for establishing a proper universal morality based upon the survival and wellbeing of the self, the expanded concept of the self takes into account all selves.

Again, bring this concept of the self down out of the theoretical clouds. Imagine if the scientific community did in fact come together and made the claim that in regard to abortion or gun control or social and economic justice or animal rights or homosexuality, etc., the "experts" in their respective fields can all be approached as modern day consultants regarding what it means to "do the right thing".

Your right of course, practical applications are the best way to work things out, if the focus subject of biological consciousness is kept in mind. "After all, only women can become pregnant." Not according to some nutsy feminists.

On the other hand, as Gloria Steiman once suggested, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Sounds about right.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 2:59 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:47 pm
Biologically conscious subjective values are all the values there are. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The protection of the biological self is the proper subject of morality. Morality becomes complicated when the wellbeing of one organism conflicts with that of another.

Exactly. Then the part where the moral objectivists among us insist it is their own -- and only their own -- moral philosophy that reflects the optimal manner in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from evil. Hundreds of hopelessly conflicting religious and secular denominations "out there" all claiming that unless you become "one of them" you can never hope to achieve enlightenment. Let alone attain immortality and salvation.
Take all the moral and political conflagrations that have rent the human species now for thousands of years. If there really is a deontological assessment -- philosophical or scientific -- able to resolve these conflicting goods, how do you explain the fact that virtually none of them have been?

That is the point, that people should no longer base morality upon anything but the survival and wellbeing of the biological subject. No ancient religious mythologies that take an imaginary friend as the dictator of human morality. The philosopher must take note that in his/her speculations the biological subject must be the proper topic. Science has not directed itself to the task at hand, historically, it has been handed over to holy men, spouting ancient mythology. Only when morality is based on biology will a system of rational morality become a reality.


(/quote) Again, bring this concept of the self down out of the theoretical clouds. Imagine if the scientific community did in fact come together and made the claim that in regard to abortion or gun control or social and economic justice or animal rights or homosexuality, etc., the "experts" in their respective fields can all be approached as modern day consultants regarding what it means to "do the right thing". (/quote]

Yes, well history has shown us that the past and the present attempt to found a common morality for the global village simply doesn't work. Morality must be based on what is common to humanity, and that commonness is our common biology.

Your right of course, practical applications are the best way to work things out, if the focus subject of biological consciousness is kept in mind. "After all, only women can become pregnant." Not according to some nutsy feminists. [/quote]

On the other hand, as Gloria Steiman once suggested, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Sounds about right.
[/quote]

Here the subject is indeed biology, but the two aspects of one thing differ in their biological natures. That's a bit of a rub but should be easily over come. For, as the Upanishads say, " The self in one is the self in all."

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

What is 'morality'

First, the term "morality" is subject to the same ambiguity as most other names for fields of study, which we might call the subjective/objective ambiguity.

Right, like there does not exist a clearly discernable distinction here between what we can know objectively regarding our day-to-day interactions in the world around us and how, on the other hand, value judgments in this world are embedded existentially -- subjectively, subjunctively -- in dasein.

By this I don't mean to imply that using the word one way commits one to objectivism and using it the other way implies subjectivism or anything like that; there simply are two different legitimate definitions of "morality".

Then this part: morality vs. "morality". As for how the word is defined, that means very little to those of my ilk until the definitions [triggering deductions, triggering schools of philosophy] are brought down out of the philosophical clouds.

On the 'objective' interpretation, "morality" refers to such situations as something's being right, evil, just, or the like. On the 'subjective' interpretation, "morality" refers to theories about or the study of rightness, evil, justice, and the like.

For example?

For example, "People must not use violence against one another" is a claim about morality in the objective sense - that is, it is a value judgement. It seeks to say what is right, wrong, or the like.

And yet most of us can think of any number of contexts in which violence is not only deemed necessary but is actually seen as wholly justified morally. The war against Hitler, for example. On the the other hand, the Nazis were themselves convinced that the Holocaust was morally justified.

On the other hand, "In Xanadu, the use of violence is strongly condemned" is not a value judgement; it can be verified or refuted purely by anthropological observation. It is a statement about morality in the subjective sense.

A little help here, please. Just because something can be verified in any particular community does not mean it is morally objective. Instead, down through the ages and around the globe we find communities that embraced any number of entirely conflicting moral philosophies. God and No God. Thus, from my frame of mind, if something is objectively immoral it is immoral for all of us. In other words, history and culture and personal experiences are trumped either by scripture or ideology or deontology.

Though, sure, I may not be understanding how he has come to understand this.

An analogous distinction applies to many other words, such as "chemistry", "psychology", "zoology", "mathematics", etc. If there were no people, would there still be chemistry?

Oh, and because there are people who genuinely believe their own value judgments are universally applicable to all of us, that's the same as saying chemical interactions are objectively applicable to all of us?

What am I missing here?

Well, chemistry in the objective sense would exist, but chemistry in the subjective sense would not: i.e., there would still presumably be chemicals with certain properties behaving in certain ways; but there would be no study of chemistry and no theories thereabout.

With no people -- subjects -- around, yes, the chemicals that make up the rest of the universe would still be wholly in sync with the laws of nature. Unless, perhaps, the universe itself is far more problematic than even human brains are capable of grasping.

The only sense of objectivity is the subjective values of a conscious subject, which it then objectifies into the outer world in material forms. Remember that all apparent reality is subjective values projected into the world. What we experience is not what is out there, but what is out there and how it affects us, altering our biological standing condition. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things in our apparent reality, for true reality is energy, frequency and vibration. This is why the only rational subject of morality is biology and the survival and well-being of life forms, which includes the entire living world. Moral relativism is confusion and confusion is chaos, it is the detrimental creation of philosophy and mythology/religions, taking the wrong subject as the basis of morality and apparent reality.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:11 am The only sense of objectivity is the subjective values of a conscious subject, which it then objectifies into the outer world in material forms. Remember that all apparent reality is subjective values projected into the world. What we experience is not what is out there, but what is out there and how it affects us, altering our biological standing condition. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things in our apparent reality, for true reality is energy, frequency and vibration. This is why the only rational subject of morality is biology and the survival and well-being of life forms, which includes the entire living world. Moral relativism is confusion and confusion is chaos, it is the detrimental creation of philosophy and mythology/religions, taking the wrong subject as the basis of morality and apparent reality.

If you are saying that the subjective self is one with its environment, then I agree with you. I'd add that thinkers can perceive reality either subjectively or objectively.

I also agree though perhaps a little less positively than you claim, that biology is the best arbiter of good and evil: life and enhancement of life seems to me to cover all known human cultures, including the culture of belief of Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu.

For reasons of personalities such as the above- mentioned, biology though a good beginning , is not enough. We also need criteria for morality. In this regard I am afraid we have to take sides and even allow just wars where people take sides and engage in violence when necessary. For instance the war against Nazism was a just war because it was against Nazism. Nazism is of course a compendium of nationalism and isolationism with accompanying false mythology.

Nationalism and isolationism are alike in their disdain of the human as individuals, as opposed to races and other divisive categories

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:36 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:11 am The only sense of objectivity is the subjective values of a conscious subject, which it then objectifies into the outer world in material forms. Remember that all apparent reality is subjective values projected into the world. What we experience is not what is out there, but what is out there and how it affects us, altering our biological standing condition. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things in our apparent reality, for true reality is energy, frequency and vibration. This is why the only rational subject of morality is biology and the survival and well-being of life forms, which includes the entire living world. Moral relativism is confusion and confusion is chaos, it is the detrimental creation of philosophy and mythology/religions, taking the wrong subject as the basis of morality and apparent reality.

If you are saying that the subjective self is one with its environment, then I agree with you. I'd add that thinkers can perceive reality either subjectively or objectively. I also agree, though perhaps a little less positively than you claim, that biology is the best arbiter of good and evil: life and enhancement of life seems to me to cover all known human cultures, including the culture of belief of Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu.

The subjective self is the creator of one's apparent reality out of the surrounding energies it is attuned to, apparent reality being a biological readout of the energies, frequencies and vibrations of ultimate reality, ultimate reality being a place of no things, consisting as it is of unmanifested forms of energy.

For reasons of personalities such as the above-mentioned, biology, though a good beginning, is not enough. We also need criteria for morality. In this regard I am afraid we have to take sides and even allow just wars where people take sides and engage in violence when necessary. For instance the war against Nazism was a just war because it was against Nazism. Nazism is of course a compendium of nationalism and isolationism with accompanying false mythology.[/quote]

Biology, its survival and wellbeing are the proper subject of morality, perhaps embracing the Upanishad's statement, that the self in one is the self in all living things. The threat to survival and well-being is what we recognize as evil

Nationalism and isolationism are alike in their disdain of the human as individuals, as opposed to races and other divisive categories
[/quote]

Both are statements against our commonality, our common biology, as in the self in one is the self in all.

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Second, in this paper it will be convenient for me to use "morality" in a very broad sense. I shall call "morality" (in the objective sense) all facts, if there are any such facts, about what is wrong, good, bad, evil, ill-advised, just, beautiful, or preferable, or any other evaluative property.

"Moral realism is the philosophical view that there are objective, mind-independent moral facts, meaning that moral claims can be true or false based on these facts, not just on personal opinions or cultural norms." AI

Yet how many times have I challenged others here to note facts pertaining to a particular moral conflagration of note.

Sure, in regard to, say, capital punishment there are any number of facts that can be established: Who is being executed? What crime did they commit? Who were the victims? Where will the execution take place? Will a governor grant the prisoner clemency? What method was used to kill them?

Either/or right?

But if the discussion shifts to the morality of capital punishment, what in fact is the most rational and virtuous assessment? In other words, where is the equivalent of objective facts here?

Again, I'm not saying they don't exist [God or no God], only that "here and now" I am unable to believe that they do.

Anything that is a value judgement will count as part of a morality in the subjective sense. For instance, the fact that Aristotle is a great thinker is a moral fact in the broad sense, because it requires a value judgement to appreciate...

So, what do you construe to be moral "in a broad sense"?

Then this part: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/6-things ... _b_5920840

...so is the fact that it's best to eat when one is hungry, because stating it gives a prescription for action...

That's more in the way of biological imperatives. And though it might be best to eat when you are hungry, you certainly are not morally obligated to.

...so is the fact that the world would be better off without tyrants, because it requires a value judgement to observe (calling something "better" as well as calling someone "a tyrant" are value judgements).

Again, there are any number of facts we can accumulate regarding particular tyrants in particular communities or nations. But where is the argument able to establish that tyrants are inherently or necessarily immoral? And in any given context there will be those that are fine with autocracy...as long as the autocrats sustain policies that they benefit from.

It's like all the millions of Americans who embrace Trump as he dismantles democracy and the rule of law. Just so long as he throws in a good word about God from time to time and continues to tug the country back to the 1950s.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 5:43 am Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Second, in this paper it will be convenient for me to use "morality" in a very broad sense. I shall call "morality" (in the objective sense) all facts, if there are any such facts, about what is wrong, good, bad, evil, ill-advised, just, beautiful, or preferable, or any other evaluative property.

"Moral realism is the philosophical view that there are objective, mind-independent moral facts, meaning that moral claims can be true or false based on these facts, not just on personal opinions or cultural norms." AI

Yet how many times have I challenged others here to note facts pertaining to a particular moral conflagration of note.

Sure, in regard to, say, capital punishment there are any number of facts that can be established: Who is being executed? What crime did they commit? Who were the victims? Where will the execution take place? Will a governor grant the prisoner clemency? What method was used to kill them?

Either/or right?

But if the discussion shifts to the morality of capital punishment, what in fact is the most rational and virtuous assessment? In other words, where is the equivalent of objective facts here?

Again, I'm not saying they don't exist [God or no God], only that "here and now" I am unable to believe that they do.

Anything that is a value judgement will count as part of a morality in the subjective sense. For instance, the fact that Aristotle is a great thinker is a moral fact in the broad sense, because it requires a value judgement to appreciate...

So, what do you construe to be moral "in a broad sense"?

Then this part: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/6-things ... _b_5920840

...so is the fact that it's best to eat when one is hungry, because stating it gives a prescription for action...

That's more in the way of biological imperatives. And though it might be best to eat when you are hungry, you certainly are not morally obligated to.

...so is the fact that the world would be better off without tyrants, because it requires a value judgement to observe (calling something "better" as well as calling someone "a tyrant" are value judgements).

Again, there are any number of facts we can accumulate regarding particular tyrants in particular communities or nations. But where is the argument able to establish that tyrants are inherently or necessarily immoral? And in any given context there will be those that are fine with autocracy...as long as the autocrats sustain policies that they benefit from.

It's like all the millions of Americans who embrace Trump as he dismantles democracy and the rule of law. Just so long as he throws in a good word about God from time to time and continues to tug the country back to the 1950s.

Objective morality is impossible until we can fit together equality and freedom. And fit together the rights of individuals and the rights of societies.
There are such people as philanthropic autocrats but they are few mainly because few are powerful enough to be autocrats. (Trump is an autocrat but is not philanthropic . ) So we need to codify moral behaviour so as govern how people can live together in societies without pulling the society apart.

So far the United Nations' moral code is the most effective .

I believe people are missing the fact that the physical world has no meaning whatsoever. All meanings attributed to the physical world are bestowed upon it by a sensing biological organism. Meaning is the property of the conscious subject never of the object. Something is hot, cold, or hard relative to the experiences of cooler, warmer, and softer biology. An objective fact would be, that we are surrounded by energies that affect/alter our standing biological condition. Experience is the source of all meanings and is the property of the conscious organism, not the object. What we experience is not what is, we experience how what is, affects our biology-- big difference. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relationship to a conscious living organism. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, making apparent reality a biological readout of the energies, frequencies, and vibrations surrounding us.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:35 pm I believe people are missing the fact that the physical world has no meaning whatsoever. All meanings attributed to the physical world are bestowed upon it by a sensing biological organism. Meaning is the property of the conscious subject never of the object. Something is hot, cold, or hard relative to the experiences of cooler, warmer, and softer biology. An objective fact would be, that we are surrounded by energies that affect/alter our standing biological condition. Experience is the source of all meanings and is the property of the conscious organism, not the object. What we experience is not what is, we experience how what is, affects our biology-- big difference. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relationship to a conscious living organism. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, making apparent reality a biological readout of the energies, frequencies, and vibrations surrounding us.

Does that not depend on what you intend by "meaning" ?
The physical world as a whole has no intentions no purpose, true, but doesn't coherence imply meaning?

There need be no purposeful being e.g. God or e.g. intelligent beings for a system to be coherent.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 8:03 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:35 pm I believe people are missing the fact that the physical world has no meaning whatsoever. All meanings attributed to the physical world are bestowed upon it by a sensing biological organism. Meaning is the property of the conscious subject never of the object. Something is hot, cold, or hard relative to the experiences of cooler, warmer, and softer biology. An objective fact would be, that we are surrounded by energies that affect/alter our standing biological condition. Experience is the source of all meanings and is the property of the conscious organism, not the object. What we experience is not what is, we experience how what is, affects our biology-- big difference. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relationship to a conscious living organism. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, making apparent reality a biological readout of the energies, frequencies, and vibrations surrounding us.

Does that not depend on what you intend by "meaning" ?
The physical world as a whole has no intentions no purpose, true, but doesn't coherence imply meaning?

There need be no purposeful being e.g. God or e.g. intelligent beings for a system to be coherent.

No, all meaning is the experiences of a biological subject, there is no other source of meaning. The nature of apparent reality is such that it is an emergent property of a conscious organism. Arising from the inseparable union of subject and object. Take away the object and consciousness ceases to be, take away the subject and the object ceases to be. Life is intelligent, but the door is not completely closed on the possibility of Panpsychism. This means, there are possibilities of consciousness in areas not commonly recognized in inanimate nature. Coherence is the relation of subject and object as the foundation of apparent reality. Remember ultimate reality is a place of no things or unmanifested energies. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious biological subject.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 8:34 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 8:03 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:35 pm I believe people are missing the fact that the physical world has no meaning whatsoever. All meanings attributed to the physical world are bestowed upon it by a sensing biological organism. Meaning is the property of the conscious subject never of the object. Something is hot, cold, or hard relative to the experiences of cooler, warmer, and softer biology. An objective fact would be, that we are surrounded by energies that affect/alter our standing biological condition. Experience is the source of all meanings and is the property of the conscious organism, not the object. What we experience is not what is, we experience how what is, affects our biology-- big difference. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relationship to a conscious living organism. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, making apparent reality a biological readout of the energies, frequencies, and vibrations surrounding us.

Does that not depend on what you intend by "meaning" ?
The physical world as a whole has no intentions no purpose, true, but doesn't coherence imply meaning?

There need be no purposeful being e.g. God or e.g. intelligent beings for a system to be coherent.

No, all meaning is the experiences of a biological subject, there is no other source of meaning. The nature of apparent reality is such that it is an emergent property of a conscious organism. Arising from the inseparable union of subject and object. Take away the object and consciousness ceases to be, take away the subject and the object ceases to be. Life is intelligent, but the door is not completely closed on the possibility of Panpsychism. This means, there are possibilities of consciousness in areas not commonly recognized in inanimate nature. Coherence is the relation of subject and object as the foundation of apparent reality. Remember ultimate reality is a place of no things or unmanifested energies. Nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious biological subject.

You and I are idealists(immaterialists) for whom man , not a revealed God, nor Nature a whole ,is the source of knowledge.

I can't quite see how panpsychism could be the case. It's hard enough to know how another mammalian species thinks. It's incomprehensible to imagine how a lifeless lump of rock such as a mountain ,or even a volcano, can pertain to any concept or feeling. I'd prefer to limit individual psyches to the biosphere. Sure, individual psyches can't exist without chemical elements , however chemical elements can exist without psyches.

Would you say that chemical elements exist only as mental objects? If so there must be some objective existence that chemists systematise. I'd call this objective existence 'possibility'.

Possibility then , poetically speaking, is God 'before' He made the Cosmos.
We understand the Cosmos inductively. Deductive reasoning depends on axioms.

According to inductive reasoning the moral codes of all the great religions arose during the Axial Age. Therefore morality relates to the unitary overarching moral message of the great religions.