Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

PS: I think objective morality is an incoherent contradiction in terms. I think that could best sum up my position.

---

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?

No one says: "In my opinion, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west."

They state it as a fact: "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west."

But someone else might point out that this fact is incorrect: "No, sir. Actually the sun is motionless relative to the earth. The earth rotates giving rise to the illusion that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west."

Just as people get empirical facts wrong, they also get moral facts wrong. See what I mean?

Sure, statements of attempted fact can be wrong. The underlying facts can't be wrong. I guess I misunderstood you here

I don't know what it means to get a moral fact wrong or right, because I don't know what it is. It isn't well-defined enough. I would just say that it isn't a factual matter.

It doesn't become one by someone making factual-type statements. I could say, "yellow is the best colour"; yet it doesn't make "the best colour" a factual matter. I've just made a poorly defined statement.