Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[DLJ]

Rob,

I'm completely with you on this.  

I think the miscommunication comes from semantics.  I'm seeing equivocation (not deliberate, I think) in the use of the term 'objective' and there is some fluffiness around the terms 'moral', 'a moral', 'be moral', 'framework', 'truth' etc.  It might we worth trying to pin those down.  

Examples:

...
The moral realist contends that morals are real... much the same way that the house is real. But there is a problem. Moral facts are not empirical facts, and so can't be subjected to the rigors of science. Let me ask you this: is justice real? If one of your loved ones was wrongfully accused of a crime, you would want the investigation to be fair and just, wouldn't you? And in conceiving of what this "justice" concerning your friends treatment would be like, you would also see objectivity involved, right? You wouldn't just wish that the proceedings were "subjectively" in your friend's favor. You wouldn't just think "I hope the judge is in a good enough mood to let my innocent friend go." You'd wish that real objective justice was done.
...

If morals are real in the same way that the house is real but relevant facts cannot be tested/measured in the same way, to avoid fluffiness, it might be worth delineating between the two e.g virtual reality vs. physical reality or perhaps ideas reality vs. material reality.  

"... you would want the investigation [and legal process] to be fair and just" ... meaning what: Transparent, same, consistent, equal?... this relates to process.

"you would also see objectivity involved, right?"  In this case, 'objectivity' relates to "the extent to which information is unbiased, unprejudiced and impartial." (best practice definition). These are 'intrinsic' qualities.

"You'd wish that real objective justice was done." Again this refers to the intrinsic qualities but the problem is that not everyone agrees on what justice is.  Book 1 of The Republic showed us this.  It was so long ago that I read it that can't remember what they decided but I do remember the Socratic method of inquiry as the big message and of course that Socrates himself was quite possibly antiquity's biggest super-troll.  Full credit.

Had it been resolved, then we wouldn't still be arguing about it today.  Rawls says that justice is fairness.  The god-fearing will argue that justice (like retribution) is divine.  

As children we learn first what 'unfairness' feels like, then we develop notions of 'sameness' and later we grasp the notion of 'proportionality' (apologies for using an americanizationalism).

One of the girls from our village was raped by one of the boys from your village.  To achieve justice, you need to offer one of the girls from your village to be raped by one of the boys from our village.  Yup, seems fair.  

Here's the crux:

...
Sure, we need to know what's important to us. Individually, as a group, as a society.  Just knowing what[']s important to us won't help us to reach an objective moral conclusion, though. 
...

You and I, Rob, see this as 'consensus' rather than 'objective'...   As different people value different things we cannot reach the same kind of objectivity (impartially etc.) that we can with two or more scientists agreeing about the facts about the house or quantity of water in the jug.  

...
Sure, if you're asking a person what's important to them, the answers will be different...but we're discussing morality, not whatever may or may not be important to an individual or society.   
...

Again, you and I, Rob, are not seeing how one can divorce morality from the individual.  We are seeing morality as having an innate, intrinsic biological element.  Someone earlier asked about 'is it moral to let your family starve?'  If not, then stealing a loaf of bread would be moral for that individual but not necessarily for the baker.

[cue Les Miserable]

...
With me so far?

Short answer: Nope.

There is a species of common sense of a particularly noble quality that is called moral sense and which the Shogun defines, thus: The moral sense is the common sense of the soul; it is the superior power of reasoning which stands before us that we may be prevented from passively following our instincts.  It is by its assistance that we succeed without too much difficulty in climbing the steep paths of duty.

This sense discerns an important quality which puts us on our guard against the danger of certain theories whose brilliancy might seduce us.  It is the moral sense which indicates to us the point of delimitation separating legitimate concessions from forbidden licence.  It allows us to go as far the dangerous place where the understanding with conscience might become compromised and by reasoning proves to us that there would be serious danger in proceeding further.

It is the moral sense which distinguishes civilised man from the brute.  It is the regulator of the movements of the soul and the faithful indicator of the actions which depend on it.  We must really pity those who are deprived of moral sense for they are the prey of all the impulses created in them by the brute nature which sleeps in the depths of each human creature.

The man whose moral sense is developed will live at peace with himself for he will only know the evil of doubt when he realises the satisfaction of having conquered it.  

Moral sense, like common sense, is formed by reasoning and is fostered by the practice of constant application.  It is the property of those who avoid evil as others avoid the spatter of mud through horror of the stains which result from it.  Those who do not have this apprehension flounder about, cover themselves in mud, sink in it, and finally are swallowed up.

I kinda like that.  

OK, we don't do 'souls' anymore and back then "common sense" is what we would nowadays call 'critical thinking' but it has a subtle mix of the biological event-process (sense), thresholds (conscience), duty, values and consequentialism; it also includes a focus on continual improvements of maturity and capability.  

Importantly it identifies what is actually at the root of a morality system... our sense of balance / equilibrium.