Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

To add to this...

I feel like when any kind of "objective morality" is being proposed, step 1 here just gets missed out. The word "morality" is used as if it represents an automatic monolith; and that anyone who disagrees with what it is "obviously about" is just disregarded. Sometimes these goals or values are announced; sometimes they aren’t even mentioned, as if the word "morality" has some cosmic meaning. This is what happens with religion most of the time, and it seems to me that this is maybe what is happening with moral realism. I’m not sure. I thought I had reached some understanding of it, but now I don’t know what’s going on again.

So I’m trying to find out if moral realism is proposing this "true morality" kind of thinking. I feel I’m getting mixed responses depending on where I look. If it is the case, then it’s simply talking about some subset of morality in general, as I would call it. A focus on what I can only assume to be the "wellbeing" approach. It would still suffer greatly from any attempt to codify wellbeing, and to decide whose wellbeing exactly is being considered, and in what proportions. The extremely human-centric nature of it worries me a lot.