There's a difference between something being objective and objectivated.
These are 'cultural memes' that you are referring to. Ideas that have been passed through the ages via cultural narratives. That does not make these ideas objective at all.
Did you ignore what I said in my essay about objectivity? If an idea is intended to solve a problem, then it actually fails to solve the problem we can explain that it does fail to solve the problem -- this means the idea is objective.
They have the pretence of existing outside of the human mind but the moral ideas must be interpreted and the interpretation will mostly change depending upon the observor (subjective).
So what if they are different? Are you saying that it's impossible for two people to agree on an interpretation?
Unlike two meteorologists describing the properties of a cloud or gas. The physical propertie will be the same providing they ahve correct instruments and all anomoloies accounted for. This is objective. The same can't be said when two people view a moral situation or try to apply a moral standard/principle to a situation.
Why not? Do you have an argument? If not, then why do you believe it?
Morality wheter enshrined in law or passed through as a meme is still subjective. This word play you are playing is silly an childish.
What word play?
Do the HIndu myths become objective because people have learnt of them and apply their 'lessons' to their daily lives?
Why are you asking that question? I didn't say that that's what objectivity means. My essay talks about problem solving and you didn't mention problems or solutions at all.
They still exist within the realm of the imagination (and solely there) despite their application in the actual world.
Again, the issue here is of language.
What issue?