It will be indeed as "objective" as what medicine/biology defines someone "healthy". That being said, we already define certain categories when it comes to disabilities, and with very few disputes. Moral values could also be like that, and indeed its like that for who are legally called psychopaths and such.
Anyway, I think the author of the article linked in the root comment is looking for something more divine for moral values, but as a disappointment, just repeats the same rituals of thousand year old fallacies like as if theist believes have objective basis from which other objective basis can be inferred.
Re:Why David Hume Is Popular Now
by icebraining on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @12:19AM
(#11804540)
I agree with your assessment of the article, I just don't think taking the average of relative moralities makes for an objective morality, at least as the word is used in this context.
Can you be more specific? What is the fallacy?
Sure. It is a fallacy that one can provide me an objective definition of Christianity or any religion in that regard.
But if it's a mechanism of our bodies, while it might be "objective" in the sense that it's a physical thing, it's still relative to each human. Just like someone is born tall or bow-legged, one might be born with 'wires' that make them uncomfortable with different things. If they act accordingly, are they moral? Even if what they do makes most others uncomfortable?