Some very good folks are of the horrifying persuasion that morals, values, rights, and duties can be said to be "objective" if they are inherent in humans. That is, they can be said to be "objective" if they are rooted in our DNA as a consequence of evolution.
For example: It might thus be argued that reciprocity -- or that a tendency to reciprocate -- is an "objective" value or moral behavior, since reciprocity and/or a tendency to reciprocate are evidently rooted in our DNA.
BUT...
One of the several various and sundry problems with such a definition of "objective" is it commits the Naturalistic Fallacy of logic -- and that is NOT a pretty sight! Not a pretty sight at all!
The Naturalistic Fallacy is a clear and obvious violation of Section IX, paragraph 12, subsection iii of "The Fact/Value Distinction"! In the Old West, men were hanged for less. Simply put, The fact X is natural, does not mean X is moral. Murder is arguably a natural human behavior, but that does not mean murder is a moral behavior. Rape is not ubiquitous to primates, but is only found in a few species -- such as humans -- but just because it is natural in humans does not make it moral. And so forth.
THUS, HENCE, and IN CONCLUSION, the argument that morals, etc. can be said to be objective if they are rooted in our DNA is a heinous sin against good and sound reasoning if and when it is stated or implied that such morals, etc are thus made desirable. And in practice, that very thing almost always is stated or implied.
________________________
And now...
"ZOUNDS! But it is enough to send strong men and women rushing for their smelling salts!" Quote @SalixIncendium (Only Salix was talking about something else entirely and quoting him here is entirely out of context and wholly meaningless. Nevertheless, It always imparts a certain sense of style to the OP to quote Salix.)
For example: It might thus be argued that reciprocity -- or that a tendency to reciprocate -- is an "objective" value or moral behavior, since reciprocity and/or a tendency to reciprocate are evidently rooted in our DNA.
BUT...
One of the several various and sundry problems with such a definition of "objective" is it commits the Naturalistic Fallacy of logic -- and that is NOT a pretty sight! Not a pretty sight at all!
The Naturalistic Fallacy is a clear and obvious violation of Section IX, paragraph 12, subsection iii of "The Fact/Value Distinction"! In the Old West, men were hanged for less. Simply put, The fact X is natural, does not mean X is moral. Murder is arguably a natural human behavior, but that does not mean murder is a moral behavior. Rape is not ubiquitous to primates, but is only found in a few species -- such as humans -- but just because it is natural in humans does not make it moral. And so forth.
THUS, HENCE, and IN CONCLUSION, the argument that morals, etc. can be said to be objective if they are rooted in our DNA is a heinous sin against good and sound reasoning if and when it is stated or implied that such morals, etc are thus made desirable. And in practice, that very thing almost always is stated or implied.
________________________
And now...