For all we know, everything is a construct of a thought process regarding the sensations we experience in our five senses. We make assumptions and reason from there. Quantum physics doesn’t tell us that A isn’t A; it informs us that some of our assumptions may be wrong, that we weren’t actually dealing with A all along but in fact with B or C. It’s not that A isn’t A, it’s that B isn’t C, although we had previously recognized and labeled both B and C as “A”.
But it isn’t necessary to reach that far to find the problems with objective ethics. Read the past threads on this topic and you’ll be able to see. There are three basic problems with all arguments for objective ethics thus far:
1. They don’t define “objective ethics” as a meaningful concept in the first place.
2. Their logical deduction is flawed, incoherent, ambiguous, only applies to those who already believe, or all four. (See refutations of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, Rothbard’s self-ownership and Ostergard’s reworking of it, Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s natural law proof, and Long’s theory of constitutive means). See also the following threads:
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law Rights The question of "natural" rights Oughtism and its Cure How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide? Does it make sense that human morality would be a matter of rigorous deduction?
3. Even if the reasoning were correct, denying or defying the ethical precept brings no necessary consequences to the person’s happiness.
For instance, even if someone would be contradicting themselves by denying or defying self-ownership (rather than just being hypocritical), there is no consequence for their happiness unless the person overlooks or fails to realize one important fact: being wrong or self-contradictory is only usually undesirable because it has bad consequences for one’s happiness.
For example, believing that 2 + 2 = 5 has bad consequences for one’s happiness when game hunting, storing food for the winter, making sure all your children have blankets, etc. However, so far no one has been able to articulate what bad consequences for one’s happiness must necessarily be the result of falling into a “performative contradiction” (see Hoppe’s AE).