> Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Let's substitute

> Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Let's substitute morality with "facts". "Maybe I'm missing it, but the argument seems to be that facts are objective because everyone things they are. How is that not begging the question?" Begging the question only applies to demonstrable truths, not evident or self-evident truths. We do not and cannot and need not demonstrate first principles. The reality of morality is obvious. The only way you can doubt it is through intentional or habitual skepticism, i.e., through some kind of philosophical FUD. I can doubt the existence of my left hand, but it would be insane for me to do so and there would be no way for me to recover my acceptance of the existence of my left hand apart from abandoning my doubt because my doubt was never rational in the first place, only willed arbitrarily. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to account for morality. Now, I reject panpsychism because panpsychism is really just a rehashing of Cartesian dualism masquerading as something new. However, it might be a welcome development and provisional stepping stone toward a recovery of telos. Once we finally abandon the stupid Cartesian view of matter we've been enslaved to for 400 years, we can recover the only real understanding of the basis for morality: teleology and the natural law.