Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

I’ll try one more thing here. I can’t address every point I’m afraid because I honestly can’t comprehend what you’re trying to say. It feels like we're jumping around all different perspectives. I admit this may be a problem my end.

I remember you said something like, "Sexual assault is wrong, because it is damaging to individuals and toxic to society".

This is assuming a definition of "wrong" that includes things that are damaging to individuals and toxic to society.

-and that's the can, kicked.  Is it assuming that, or can that be demonstrated to be true?  

But let’s use a different word, and see what happens. Let’s define "right" to include things that are damaging to toxic and individuals. Now:

"Sexual assault is right, because it is damaging to individuals and toxic to society".

Can you actually do that, simply define things the way you wish in an objective system that accurately models reality?  I'm not convinced that you can.  Either there's something about sexual assault that is categorically and objectively right or wrong..or there isn't..but regardless of that you don't change the nature of the act by defining it either way.  

It’s the same logic, and the same conclusion. My point is that the inclusion of "wrong" was not necessary in the first place, it was a middleman. The real discussion comes in deciding what is right and wrong in the first place, not in how this is then applied in logical moral statements.

Well, sure...but we're still asking the same question.  Is there something about x that makes it wrong, or is it just your opinion that makes some x wrong? The answer for this, from moral realism..is the same at every level of discourse.