Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure yeah, it’s objective within a subjective framework. The framework is the value judgement. Within it, you have facts and a conclusion. The framework isn’t objective in that you can choose any one you like.

Can you, though, and is it?  You're assuming alot with that.  At the very least, we can't choose anything we like and be talking about the same thing.  If I contend that my moral framework is the presence, at the end..of chocolate icecream..will I be seen to be making a cogent and serious objection?  

It’s different uses of the words objective/subjective. You can make anything objective within itself. I feel we’re just arguing semantics.

The proper use of the term is important.  What am I saying here, other than that your use is objectively inaccurate, and trivial? Your idea of subjectivity boils down to the fact that people are choosing a system.  That's not entirely true, and it wouldn't actually make the system meaningfully subjective even if it were.

That's a comment on -our- construction. Not the construction of a moral system. Yes, we are fundamentally subjective beings...but unless you think that it is impossible for us to access objective truth, then there is no barrier in this to an objective morality that is not an equal barrier to any other statement of fact.

---

Oh for sure, I’m all for trying to impact positive change. My point was that it has to be through discussion and the sharing of ideas, not just "statements of fact" that the primitive are supposed to just bow down to.

Primitives, as a point of fact, have had alot of trouble with moral facts.  Constantly referring to opinions in their stead.  The idea of a moral fact is that it is something that can be the basis of discussion and sharing ideas.  A point of agreement on the state of things to work forward from.

---

The difference between "moral facts" and more straightforward facts like finding the mass of something is that there will be much less agreement about what framework to use to interpret the data. It is of great utility for us all to measure length in the same way, and to use the same units (or just a few different types).

Already making special cases.  A moral realist would reject this characterization.  Moral facts, like other facts, are so because they purport to report a fact, and the contents of that statement are true.  

The statement "x is wrong" is taken to be content and syntax equivalent to the statement "x is 12 inches wide"

With morality, we'll each have our own framework, and so the "facts" then become specific only to us. There will be a lot of overlap, of course. I’d fully expect most people on the forum to agree with me on most moral issues. Some will go further than me in some regards, and I will go further than them in others. So we're using the terminology much more loosely when we each say what is "wrong", as compared to lengths we have measured.

Having ones own framework will not change the nature of whatever facts might apply to it.  Consider two opposing moral statements.

Sexual assault is wrong because it harms.
Sexual assault is right because it harms.  

Both statements truth depends on some fact about sexual assault, not about the person making the claim.  If it is not harmful, they are both objectively wrong, lol.  If it is, then see below -

What is considered wrong also fluctuates as society changes too, while the utility of measuring length means it stays mostly the same. But of course, we do all have a rough idea what we mean by "wrong" because we're all familiar enough with each other and the kind of standards we have. If however I’m talking to a particularly nutty theist or someone from an entirely different culture, I will have to question it much more.

-and you can question...like a person might above with the "sexual assault is right because it harms" statement..whether or not those people are discussing "morality" - or something else.  Whether their terminology is accurate.

Is what we're talking about, when we discuss morality, a manner in which to maximize the pain and harm of ourselves and others?

Are you aware of the many different systems of measurement that have been tried and are no longer used? Don't you think it might be possible to do the same with moral measuring systems?