The second trap is the naturalistic fallacy , (which is the inverse of the moralistic fallacy), which assumes that what is natural must be moral or desired. The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution,.. — Matias

Basically we desire to be better people. Even those that believe there is no ‘better’ deem such a position ‘better’; even if due to ignorance of ignorance.

A baby can learn to walk. We struggle onward - seems dumb not to doesn’t it? Who am I to say though, a conceit unto myself! — I like sushi

Even those that believe there is no ‘better’ deem such a position ‘better’; — I like sushi

In order for your claim to be true it seems to me it must be that there is no "objective." As to "better," if there is a better, it must have some basis for being better. But I think you deny the basis, and thus the better.

The only defense of your position that I can see lies in your denying even the possibility of the proposition - which is just smashing the pottery and then claiming there is no pottery. — tim wood

But do the things judged?

I acknowledge that inasmuch as a judgment requires a mind, then absent mind there is no judgment. Is that your criteria for "objective," that to be objective it must be absent mind? — tim wood

Perhaps we should discriminate between the activity of judging and the content/substance of the judgment. The activity in every case belongs to and comes from the mind that makes it - the actor. But the judgment as judgment - even the word is suggestive - judges. What does it mean to judge? I offer, to assess according to some appropriate criteria. Even "appropriate" suggests something "outside."

Maybe less absurdly and more simply, 2+2=4, as a judgment, is always already in the mind that thinks it. But, it is not true just because it is thought; rather, as a theorem of a system of reasoning, arithmetic, it is true in virtue of the criteria of that system. The mind that judges, then, merely records what is an objective fact. The fact objective, the recording subjective. So far so good? — tim wood

I agree. If you and I and a bunch of other folks agree on something, then either there's something "out there" we agree upon, or there's a coincidence. Too many agreements for coincidence. — tim wood

Before we go there, consider whether it may become a disagreement over how this or that is defined or understood: are you interested in digging through that layer? — tim wood

Allow me to attack it: How do you know the difference between subjective and objective? — tim wood

There is no objective "better," — Terrapin Station

If you like - but it does not follow that one thing is not better than another. — Banno

You really are stuck on that objective - subjective hangup. — Banno

Just when people say wonky things in relation to it. And they often do. It's one of the more common confusions. — Terrapin Station