Belong to the same cluster in thing space as your two examples.
IIUC this unpacks to “things such that if we talked about them, we would decide to use the same words as we do for the two examples”.
Applying this to “objective morals”, I don’t feel that the statement tells me much. If this is all you meant, that’s a valid position, but not very interesting in my view. Could you more explicitly describe some property of objective morals, assuming they “exist” by your definition? Something that is not a description of humans (what word we would use to describe something) but of the thing itself?
IIUC this unpacks to “things such that if we talked about them, we would decide to use the same words as we do for the two examples”.
Applying this to “objective morals”, I don’t feel that the statement tells me much. If this is all you meant, that’s a valid position, but not very interesting in my view. Could you more explicitly describe some property of objective morals, assuming they “exist” by your definition? Something that is not a description of humans (what word we would use to describe something) but of the thing itself?