If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective. And you can sit still and starve yourself secure in the knowledge that you have logically derived truth and you're not actually hungry, it's just a bunch of chemical signals that signify nothing of importance.

From a more practical perspective, we can all agree that there are more and less desirable states of human life, and that is the context where the term "objectively" is used in common parlance.

I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model.

> If you zoom out far enough reality itself is logically subjective

Maybe, but value is subjective even when you zoom in.

> I reject your nihilism and substitute my subjective values as a superior model.

I never expressed nihilism, I stated that values are subjective, and describing them as objective is incorrect and obscures the source of the practical problem you yourself described with implementing them.

I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then? If I say "curing cancer is an objective good for humanity", you'd wag your finger and call me out there as well?

There is no pink, only salmon. Got it.

> I guess no one should ever user the term "objective" when referring to anything that interfaces with morality then?

Correct, they should not.

Where the statement without “objective” is uncontroversial and the discussion touches on nothing else to which objectivity vs. subjectivity is important, it adds nothing but pointless inaccuracy, when the claim is controversial or offered in a context where objectivity vs subjectivity actually matters in some other way, it is harmfully misleading.