You should go back and re-read, or perhaps read it, that is. Mill doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, and for that matter, neither do I. What he does explicitly reject are appeals to objective truth, and those are piling up pretty deep from the "objectivists" and non-objectivists alike here...
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility." - J.S. Mill
Your quote of Mills, made to me last night, did not establish him as rejecting objective truth.
You should go back and re-read, or perhaps read it, that is. Mill doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, and for that matter, neither do I.
Exactly what I just posted above, in reply to your bit that Mills does not lay claim to 'objective truth'.
What he does explicitly reject are appeals to objective truth,
Your quote of his below does not 'reject' such 'appeals'.
and those are piling up pretty deep from the "objectivists" and non-objectivists alike here...
Your word-gaming ideas on 'objective truth' are indeed being rejected, deeply.... Learn to live with it.
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility." - J.S. Mill
So Mills is saying that he argued that an abstract right is not a thing of independent utility, and that he forgoes any advantage derived from the idea.
How does this relate in any way with Mills 'explicitly rejecting appeals to objective truth'?
Obviously, if is means 'is', it has no relationship. It is just more general_re word-play.