>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.
Yes, the concept is subjective. The situation perception depends upon the nature of the subject (human, dog, worm, little green man).