Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

Khemical and I seem to have agreed that I’m a moral realist, even though by all accounts I still call morality subjective. I’m not going to argue about this language further. I feel I’ve made a good effort to describe my position and no more progress is going to be made on this front. Like I’ve always said, there are an infinite number of possible objective moralities to pick from. One can simply check for internal consistency.

I still suspect that realism is meant to be saying more than this, that there are statements about morality itself that can be said to be true or false, not just for any moral system. I’m surprised Vulcan agrees with Khem, since he seemed to be adopting this latter position.

The possible objections to true or false moral statements, even after allowing morality to be defined as you will, seems to be more to do with epistemology or the parsing of logic rather than morality itself. Objections can of course be raised at any stage, and with validity, and I tend to acknowledge these but then apply a "behaves as if..." principle of pragmatism to move on.

I’ll do some more reading on all these subjects to see if I can understand more. Thanks so much to everyone for your input so far!

---

PS: It was my understanding that moral realism supported one, "correct" morality. To me, that is what most people mean by "objective morality", not "morality that becomes objective once you announce what morality means to you".

---

Here we go. Another secular Humeanist!