Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

I appreciate you trying to explain, but I still don't understand I'm afraid. We can make factual statements to answer well-defined questions, such as how much water is in something. We've said exactly what information we want, and we've prescribed what units we want the answer in.

I don't see this analogy as being enough to describe what a "moral/ethical fact" is supposed to be. I'm particularly bemused by your statement that moral facts may not be correct. So in what way are they facts?

As for things like "justice", I consider them to be abstract concepts that we use to help us understand and process our environment. I don't believe they exist in the same way physical objects exist. There is no such thing as "objective justice", there can only be a logical adherence to some specific rules of justice that have been agreed. What counts as justice in the first place is highly subjective. Morality is just the same.

I think (supposed) objective moral statements are merely a person (or group) stating how they want things to be. To try and remove their points of view and their goals is analogous to removing the specific information from the question about water in a vial. If I ask, to use a different example, "What is the best mode of transport?" I'm asking an ill-defined question. What is best, and perhaps factual, depends entirely on what my requirements are. The "best way to act" is similarly incoherent to me. There's not enough information in the question to form any facts about it.

My question is: what is an ethical fact supposed to be telling me? With no framework around it, it is totally meaningless to me.