I made a weird argument out of a misunderstanding of Hume on the first page for the objectivity of perception and it's morality. It is not perceptions that are simple and indivisible, but parts of it when broken down.
That was the wrong way to argue for objectivity, instead, I should have said perception being all there is, it is objective. To assume it is subjective, would be to assume the existence of perceptions other than yours, which is impossible, as there is no evidence for objects of perception as perceivers. Of course, someone may say "but I speak and you respond", but I also push a button on a vacuum cleaner and it turns on. There is only my feeling of the button, and my vision and hearing of speech. Does the vacuum cleaner feel my finger pressing down and respond, or do I just hear the sucking and see an on light? To say otherwise, I would have to feel the feelings of the vacuum.
There being only my perception, how is this perception susceptible to bias and determined subjective? Because of the assumption that there are multiple perceivers, something undiscoverable.
But another argument for even the absence of personal bias. As only a perception is able to act on a perception, where does the personal bias come in? What is personal would have to be outside of perception, in order to bias it. Someone will say well perception is outside of perception (as all perceptions cannot run together), and past perceptions influence new perceptions, and in fact this is what you (the op) called morality, the interpretation of meaning into a perception, the meaning necessarily being from past perceptions. And they will say past perceptions are what make up the personal bias, as personal identity is only past perception. So what will you (the op) say to personal identity/past perception influencing new perception, and making perception subjective?
To which I say there is nothing personal about past perceptions. The uses of words such as my or I, are only the result of the resemblance of parts, and the desire to distinguish between what is not of some resemblance. Consider the spoken memory "I went to the store yesterday", I is used to distinguish between the different
things that could have gone to the store. It is associated with the collection of parts/objects that are most regularly perceived, and the resulting relational ideas formed. Two perceptions in regular succession, such as the thought of eating and the bringing of food to the mouth, allow for the idea of causality, "I fed myself." The I and myself, being the perceived relation between parts. Just as blue, red, and green make up the general term color, and there isn't a color divorced from individual colors, perceptions are generalized for an I, but there is no I divorced from perception. There also isn't a perception of color, but instead individual colors, just as there isn't a perception of an I, but individual perceptions. These perceptions grouped together based on their relation, ex: succeeding perceptions of thought and hand positioning. To perceive not the individual perception, but a perceiver, would mean to perceive what is outside perception, as a perceiver would need to be outside perception to not be a part of the perception. But how can what cannot be perceived exist? What cannot be perceived being what is outside of perception.
Then, if there is no personal influence, personal identity being only a relation between individual perception, and there are no perceivers, there being only perception, perception must be objective. Or not susceptible to any bias. Perception must exist objectively. This is a weird argument, as morality is how to perceive. Or perception determining rules for perception, objectively.
Did I contradict myself? I feel like I did. I shouldn't have been so fast to write that post on the first page about objectivity.