I have to say, I don't really see the two parts of this dilemma as a true dilemma.
For example, you can arbitrarily set moral goals, and then use science to achieve them objectively, whereas arbitrary methods might not be able to.
If the goal is to minimize suffering over time, and maximize a sense of well-being, then there's a lot of science to be done
1) Determine which brain functions are associated with a sense of well-being
2) Determine what situations trigger those functions
3) Statistically determine how best to achieve societal outcomes such that the mean level of well-being is improved.
All of this may or may not be more useful than just making shit up, though.
For example, you can arbitrarily set moral goals, and then use science to achieve them objectively, whereas arbitrary methods might not be able to.
If the goal is to minimize suffering over time, and maximize a sense of well-being, then there's a lot of science to be done
1) Determine which brain functions are associated with a sense of well-being
2) Determine what situations trigger those functions
3) Statistically determine how best to achieve societal outcomes such that the mean level of well-being is improved.
All of this may or may not be more useful than just making shit up, though.
