Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[vulcanlogician]

...
"objectivity" by [its] very nature tends not to assume that any one apparent perspective is the correct one (that would be "subjectivity" right?). 
...

Not right.

Subjectivity is not about "the correct one" it's about a correct one for each individual.

Sure, and concerning subjective matters, you are "right" to say this or that looks a certain way. But if you posit that the earth is motionless relative to the sun, then you are wrong.  The opposite is true. You'd have to come up with a set of physical laws that explain how the sun is able to circle so fast around the earth. Concerning such hypothetical laws, none of them conform to the observations of physicists.



FWIW, I like the Ptolemaic model. It got some things correct: the moon is the closest orbiting body, and does directly orbit the earth. Mercury and Venus are between the Earth and the sun.

But let's talk about the errors. It's not just a matter of irregular orbits and retrograde motion. The biggest error with this model is which body is in the center. Once you fix that, you've done most of the work. And not only that, if you've been diligent and accounted for the Earth's rotation, you've also explained why a person standing on the Earth has a perception that the sun circles him/her. That's what the James Rachels essay attempts to do concerning ethics. Rachels posits that the various subjective takes on morality have more to do with where specific cultures stand in relation to the objective moral truth.

Keep in mind, as this debate continues, my approach to these matters is Socratic. I'm not "attached to" objective morality in the way a theist might be attached to God beliefs. I think the moral skeptics have a point (and have done good work in drawing attention to weaknesses in moral realism). Inasmuch as moral skeptics are correct on certain matters, they can help us get closer to understanding what ethics really is, even if they are ultimately wrong.

As Socrates famously said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." After examining the arguments from all sides, I have found myself defending moral objectivism. When an argument comes along that forces me from this position, my position will change. Not to mention the fact that, periodically, I intentionally place myself back in a position of "Socratic ignorance" to reassess my positions again.