Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

Rob, I'd like you to watch the following video when you get a minute. It's an interesting video on its own merits, but I'd like you to keep in mind our debate about "Is morality real and objective?" in mind while you listen to the debate concerning "Is math real and objective?" There are parallels between the fictionalist view and moral skepticism. 

Fictionalism postulates that math is practically useful, yet says that math does not make factual statements. Sound familiar? You postulate something very similar with your notion that the idea of wellbeing is something that is useful for you and I to achieve our subjective goals, but that morality itself is not an objective endeavor.

The point is, most people reject mathematical fictionalism. They think that mathematical statements do have truth value. But they can't fully make the case that numbers exist. I think the same phenomenon transpires when people say that moral statements can have no truth value.

Sure, I get what you’re saying, but there’s an awful lot of problems comparing maths to morality. There isn’t just one mathematical system, for a start. There are infinitely many. Which one is "correct"? They can all be correct within themselves, but that's all you can say. Which ones have the most practical applications, is a more apt question. This depends on what you’re trying to achieve. We're back to the same circular problem as with morality. If you’re trying to achieve one thing with maths and I’m trying to achieve another, then asking which is the correct system to use is meaningless.

I answered the rest of the questions in the numbers thread, especially concerning the video

(You also seem to have admitted that an agreement upon wellbeing as being a desired outcome is necessary before you can even begin to talk about comparing moral systems. You need to agree some sort of outcome or you’re talking about different things.)