Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

A statement like, "the earth revolves around the sun" is too vague in itself to constitute a scientific fact. "The earth follows the pattern of a system of other planets all making their own roughly equidistant orbits around the sun" would be more scientific. The thing is, most people know this is what you mean by the first statement, but you haven’t actually said it. The same is kind of true with morality. People assume others "basically know what it’s about" without actually staying what it’s about.

I see this a lot, an implied parallel with scientific facts. What I don’t get is examples of how this applies to morality. It is just assumed that there are facts, without any demonstration of how this can be so, or what these facts would even represent. Are they approximations of truths about reality (scientific facts)? Or are they merely axiomatic internal truths such as with mathematics?

If I don’t value wellbeing at all, for example, am I excluded from the conversation? If not, how can any fact apply to me and you at the same time?

---

PS: there must be a meta-system which values whether valuing wellbeing is a good thing.