Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

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.

I agree with what you're saying here, too.

The bigger problem is how completely ill-defined wellbeing is. Even if everyone could agree on the elements involved, how exactly you measure and weight each element is up for grabs. Also, this still doesn't account for the ethics of the methods used to achieve these goals. It's an "end justifies the means" scenario.

This is why I personally don't adhere to any "moral system". I take every situation on its own merits, and I try and consider every aspect of it as thoroughly as I can. The somewhat self-referential problem of how you achieve moral goals, and how you balance this with actually achieving those goals, makes things massively complicated.