I am using ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in the common sense way of ‘mind-independent’ or ‘mind-dependent’ and explained in what specific way I’m doing that (that is, the proper basis of terminal values, and thus the rational basis for moral judgments, are hard-wired facts of reality that exist prior to, and independent of, the rest of our knowledge and cognition—and that the proper basis of terminal values is not something that is invented later, as a product of, and dependent on, later acquired/invented knowledge and chains of cognition).
For what it’s worth, not only is your usage a common one, I think it is consistent with the way some philosophers have discussed meta-ethics. Also, I particularly like the narrow way you construct ‘mind-dependent’. It seems to me that the facts that I am capable of reason, that I understand English, and that I am not blind are all “objective” in common sense speak, even though they are, in the broadest possible sense of the phrase, mind-dependent. This illustrates the need for care about what kind of mind-dependence makes for subjectivity.
For what it’s worth, not only is your usage a common one, I think it is consistent with the way some philosophers have discussed meta-ethics. Also, I particularly like the narrow way you construct ‘mind-dependent’. It seems to me that the facts that I am capable of reason, that I understand English, and that I am not blind are all “objective” in common sense speak, even though they are, in the broadest possible sense of the phrase, mind-dependent. This illustrates the need for care about what kind of mind-dependence makes for subjectivity.