Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think the impasse is on account of us having different ideas on what morality is or what it's for.  Chances are we don't...but suppose we did.   

So, for example..let's say that I say the purpose of morality is to tell people how to act.  You say it's to perpetuate the species.  Well, yes and yes is an option.  These statements aren't mutually exclusive.  What if we had some that were, though?  A moral realist isn't committed to one single set of moral statements, insomuch as that all meaningfully objective and accurate moral statements - including competing moral statements..would be regarded as simultaneously true.   This is the basis of dilemma in a realist moral system.

Allow me to resolve the dilemma...

There is no such thing as an 'objective moral statement'.

There you go, job done.

No need to thank me.

Consequently, there would be no true right or wrong, then.  Can you argue that in good faith? The assault of a child, for example. Not...really...wrong. Only wrong as a matter of opinion. Subjectively wrong, based upon the interpreter and not the act. Is it wrong, "nobody knows".

There -have- to be objective moral statements, even if those statements are only epistemically objective, elsewise any positive moral claim is baseless. To hold to any moral system you must either accept that the statements made are objective with respect to some underlying ontology, or objective with respect to a system of axioms - the latter only pushes the can down the road.