system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How can “objective morality” exist if by definition what “is right” is a product of the mind?

Allow me to elaborate on the title. I have been thinking of the concept of “objective morality” - that what is “right” and what is “wrong” is right or wrong independent of what anyone thinks is right or wrong. However, it seems to me that the very idea of “right or wrong” is a product of human consciousness. There is no right or wrong in the animal kingdom, it is an emergent property of 1) our minds and 2) possibly our societies. In that case, how can objective morality exist when the very idea of morality cannot be freed from the notion of thinking about morality. 

Note I am not a philosopher, so apologies if I did not phrase this well or if this is obvious, it is just something I was thinking about last night.

EDIT: This post blew up far beyond my expectations. First, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to me. I am trying to respond to everyone but given the number of comments and the fact that many of them are far above my level and require me to look up many terms it will still take me a few hours (or even a day) from writing this (Saturday August 21, 2021) to reply to everyone. Thank you for your patience and your amazing responses!
gpt
If morality is mind dependent then it isn't mind independent, but this seems banal, and is obviously exactly what moral realists dispute. They deny that morality is a mere product of the mind, or 'human consciouness' or whatever. The only kind of suggestion that you make as to why this might be the case is,

>There is no right or wrong in the animal kingdom

but obviously non-human animals are unaware of plenty of things which are real. Non-human animals are unaware of calacus, but it doesn't mean we made up the answers to calacus. There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Horatio, than are dreamt of in the mind of a cat.