Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[Angrboda]

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.

That's an epistemological problem which comes after acknowledging that morality does consist in promoting well-being. It's an important practical consideration, but of no use in disputing the philosophical point. Whether we could come up with reasonable metrics doesn't seem to be all that different a problem than we have today, of determining what is moral and what is not. We're clear and unambiguous about some things, and lost and confused about some others. A perfect system is not required. Only one that reasonably captures the bulk of such things. Arguing otherwise is just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Given that the so-to-speak prime directive of life is to survive and reproduce, we have an anchor from which we can reason outward.

I'm going to cast my lot in with suggesting that Rob subscribes to some form of radical skepticism and therefore is a moral nihilist, most likely of the error theory variety (though there are strong elements of non-cognitivism). Just my two cents worth.