In short, you can't deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you
Yes I can - if 1) I use the word in it's basic common sense way, and then, as a bonus in case people are confusing the common sense usage with some other technical meaning, 2) I specifically say "I'm not intimately familiar with the technical jargon, so here is what I mean by this", and then I explain specifically what I mean.
Hank, I'm sorry - I was a little too harsh. My general difficulty is that I don't think you endorse what Jack called universal relativism. If you don't, then
I addressed this previously, explaining that I am using 'objective' and 'subjective' in the common sense way of 'mind-independent' or 'mind-dependent'
and
I don't understand why people insist on equating 'objective morality' with something magically universal.
don't go well together.
It is the case that objective != universal, but objective things tend to cause universality. If you have a reason w...
Do you believe in an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*), or are you a moral nihilist/relativist? There seems to be some division on this point. I would have thought Less Wrong to be well in the former camp.
Edit: There seems to be some confusion - when I say "an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*)" - I do NOT mean something like a "one true, universal, metaphysical morality for all mind-designs" like the Socratic/Platonic Form of Good or any such nonsense. I just mean something in reality that's mind-independent - in the sense that it is hard-wired, e.g. by evolution, and thus independent/prior to any later knowledge or cognitive content - and thus can be investigated scientifically. It is a definite "is" from which we can make true "ought" statements relative to that "is". See drethelin's comment and my analysis of Clippy.