Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

I'm a still a bit unclear about the whole "fact" thing, and it appears to undermine moral realism.

If something is a matter of fact, then there are only correct and incorrect answers; it doesn't make sense to me that you could disagree about a fact, which is correct by definition.

If it was a fact that "murder is moral", then there's nothing to disagree with, it just is moral. The problem, again, is that I don't know what this statement actually means. And the idea that you could find moral facts immoral makes me conclude that it can't be the same meaning of the word "moral".

It seems to me the motivation for moral realism is essentially to avoid undesirable philosophical situations, but it does so by either assertion or equivocation.