As to which interpretation to use

Literally I would be hard pressed to find that in any philosophical work or anything by laymen even

One may be more common, but it is also less accessible

Its actually more accessible

To philosophers who are used to using an abbreviation as a standin

Google "intrinsic morality"

google intrinsic then google morality

How do I disable pings

Morality in and of itself...

Or natural morality

Essential morality

These are all words also used to refer to an objective morality

Dude, intrinsic morality is clearly a shorthand, with a meaning that isn't a literal combination of those two words

Yes it is a literal combination

That morals are intrinsic to reality rather than not being so

Yeah, intrinsic to reality, not merely intrinsic to 'unspecified'

There's a **big** difference

I choose to read that phrase as involving an omission

So that I can use the familiar meanings of the words involved.

The definition is "naturally" that implies it's reality

Um, what

"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

```belonging naturally; essential```

And...?

Natural implies nature, as in natural law and such

Why do you need this phrase to be a literal combination of the two words?

Is it really such a big concession?

I don't, it just isn't ambiguous

Well, I made an argument that it is

You made one that it isn't, and I'm really not buying it.

Just because one could possibly use a definition that no one has used before doesn't make it ambiguous

Again;

Your words have many other definitions also that you don't intend

Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. (google)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Yes?

Do you know how essential and natural are used in philosophy

Have you read up on natural law or essentialism?

Look at the webster page

My model allows for both versions of the phrase to make sense, by explaining your version as involving an implicit omission.