>This seems to be what most people mean by "objective" and,
>perhaps, the common usage is better than Rand's, given that it is placing
>the good in the _object_ apart from the _subject_
You cannot "place good" into an object. "Good" is another human concept, and so you need a human observer whose PERCEPTION of an object is good, the object itself is nothing of the sort.
>I would quibble with one thing here which relates to my second point above.
>Morality, as such, need not be the same for each species or type of being.
It does to be "absolute".
>I would not take this as meaning morality is subjective or arbitrary.
I would. I think most people would agree with me.
>It merely reflects on the fact of being being (no pun intended) different.