My issue is not that you "did not define 'human flourishing' in the way in which I would like"; my issue is that you have not made any effort to define it at all - no definition, nothing. If someone asked my to describe the car that I drive and I simply said that my car is 'for me', would that tell them anything that they didn't already know?
But that is a false analogy because the "nature" of cars is not being discussed there. Again, I haven't made a claim to the "nature of morality" (just like I haven't made a claim to the "nature of God" or the "nature of Unicorns"). So please stop asking me to defend a position I haven't made, and please defend the positive position you have presented and believe regarding an objective morality.
Consider the following statement that you have made: "not all philosophical terms can be defined non-ambiguously". Why doesn't the thrust of that statement apply to the words that make up that statement itself (e.g. 'philosophical', 'defined', 'non-ambiguously',...), and if that is the case then why, on your view, does that statement have any meaning at all? Quine and Derrada might have theorized about the 'necessary and sufficient conditions' for prescribing meanings to the words we use, but I'll bet that regardless of their conclusions they actually had a genuine discussion with their detractors. You are just compounding the excuses that you made in your last flurry of posts.
NOPE. You can just continue to sit there a whine about thinking I'm avoiding this, or making excuses for that, but I'm going to continue to be unfazed because I haven't made a positive claim to any "nature" of morality and we have, thus far, been discussing (or debating, whichever way you want to look at it) the definitions of often contested terms. I don't see the terms you just mentioned in my statement on terms as being debated very highly and seemed to me that you did
understand what I meant using those, but not