Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

The use of the term "wrong" is a value judgement.

Sure...the evaluative premise is required to go from an is to an ought (the deontology at the end).  It can't -not- be in there and still be rational or objective.  The term "wrong" is also a name for a descriptive set.  Actions or outcomes that share some important characteristic.  Saying that something is a value judgement does not threaten it's purported objectivity.  

You can list all the consequences of any action, as you have done, and they are factual.

Then my moral statement was filled with moral facts.  Does my moral conclusion follow from those moral facts?  

We've been discussing an entirely abstract idea of morality, where good and bad haven’t been defined at all. I find such a notion useless, which has been my whole argument, but I’m trying to meet middle ground with Vulcan

There's a really simple way to define either.  Bad is what harms and good is what helps.  I doubt that it's a useless notion for you.  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that you employ it daily when making any decision that has a moral component.  Even further, that you have so much practice employing it...some moral decisions do not appear to be moral decisions at all, they've become..at this point, like swinging a bat or riding a bike.  Something that you just do.  Competent even in absent minded condition.