Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

"Partisan" might not equal "subjective" but "perspective" should. If it's all about how people view things, Then it's not objective. But that's kind of just exploiting a technicality. More relevant is that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist, Or for life to exist. Even though they are a major factor in selection, They aren't a vital one, And their survival is not required for things to carry on. If humans disappeared, It would change things, And maybe some species would suffer while others benefited, But selection is all ABOUT some species doing well and others not. Humans play a part in selection because they are present; they are not present to play a part in selection. No objective AND ethics-related value (the definition of "value" that means "principle", Not "worth"; I was unsure before, But it seems like it was used as a countable noun in the topic so it's probably "principle") can exist, Regardless of subject area. Objective values must exist OUTSIDE minds, Because if any value is based solely in thoughts, Feelings, Or beliefs, It is subjective (even if every mind in existence agreed, It would still be limited to perceived truth, Instead of concrete truth). An objective principle would have to have some form of existence outside of minds (if a principle is ABOUT reality, That still wouldn't be enough, Such as "killing someone is wrong" is only how someone feels about killing, Not actually a rule that is measurable or detectable when examining the moment of death). Ethical values on the other hand must exist INSIDE minds, Because ethics are anything that people use to make choices. "Right" and "wrong" beyond what people use to make choices are irrelevant, Because un-choosing inanimate objects, Or things that could choose but don't at the time, Produce the same outcomes regardless of whether that outcome was "wrong" or "right" (although people usually make subconscious choices at all times when they're conscious; a person in a coma or sleeping produces the same outcome whether something is wrong or right but a person who's idly walking does decide how to take a step, Based on whether there's a stair or if it's a hill or just flat, For example). Choice is the only area in which right and wrong have any effect in the world, Unless the universe's physical laws enforce right and wrong, But then it would only be similar to "positive" and "negative" charges, Which don't really deserve their names because they aren't lower or higher in value than each other, Just opposites. Trying to make a rule that is based on the real world AND exists for choices in people's minds splits the rule in half: if the rule was "killing is a good thing" and nobody wanted to choose that way, The ethics people used to decide would be distinct from the physical rule (and the physical rule in the end would have no effect on anything in the world, And would not exist). The only rule that exists is the consensus that "killing is a bad thing", And whether or not killing really is a "bad thing" according to non-arbitrary rules will not determine the arbitrary decisions people make. It is the general trend that people consider killing to be a bad thing, Not because of influence by a principle of the physical world, But because societies that decrease their own numbers do not persist while societies that cooperate civilly DO persist, And that isn't necessarily right, It's just what was caused to be likely by unbreakable rules. Selection causes certain beliefs to become common, Analogously to how selection would cause certain traits to become common, But the beliefs were not "good"; they just caused their own continuation. It is impossible to determine when the current state of the definition of "right" is "right" because people who take an outside view on ALL of their rules in order to determine their validity have no further rules to choose by, And people who don't transcend each one don't entirely verify the definition of a "correct" choice. If an objective value is said to be "right", One might attempt to question why it is "right", And then find there is no reference with which to answer the question. It would be akin to trying to examine a flashlight in the dark; one can look at other things with the flashlight, But cannot shine the light ON the flashlight.