I suppose the key question from me is whether you really "own" a personal philosophy or whether ownership is not rather a problem. So I would provoke you by saying that if you believe that you own it, you also own other things like "guilt", "doubt", but also "generosity" and "goodness of heart". What if you are not the owner of these and other sensations?

By this I mean the view that everything in life is a process, an alternating vibration always in its second of emergence between living systems. No matter what quality I just call "mine" in these rapidly successive processes of interaction, it is always problematic to want to hold on to a quality like "anger" when I hang that anger on a subject, either myself or the one facing me. Or someone on whom I mentally project it. Because holding on to it already threatens to miss the next step in the incredible fast process and I actually always come "too late" when I want to carry an angry point home.

So what if you don't attribute a subjective weakness to the one or those you formulate in your mind because they don't want to recognize an objective moral truth? In other words, not seeking to find a subjective goal of subjectivity, neither towards you nor the others.

You may know the following experience: Someone in your presence has angered you so much that it was your turn either to raise your hand against him or to shout at him or to offend him caustically. But even though your pulse was racing and your inner excitement was threatening to overpower you, you suddenly paused and reconsidered.

What did stop you?

And further: Whose morals did you just save? Your own, that of the other, both?

Isn't it also more of a saving aspect/experience than that of a defining one?

To practice such in a less pronounced form, to always assume a probability that moral insight can always occur at the moment of a phenomenological event. It doesn't matter what law I use as objectively true, it's a coherent experience I make, isn't it?

When I write "LVOE I OUY": What do you see and what does your brain make of it? It goes the way of the strongest probability, doesn't it? It's so incredibly fast in its response, all the already determined patterns of recognition have been practiced through long lasting habit.

If one can no longer wonder about gravity, then "gravity" has become such a self-evident phenomenon that it is no longer suitable for good philosophical narration. It has long been scientifically overwritten and empiricism seems not necessary.

I'm probably annoying you with it, but I'd like to know more about your practical experience than your theoretical considerations.

... And maybe ... I just was not agreeing with your headline as I think morality is always having the potential to be both, objektive and subjective at the same time as the carrier of positive outcomes as well as negative.