Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

And the moral of that story was that human morality would be different from other kinds of morality.

Due to whatever demonstrable facts about human beings and their nature/circumstance are different, was what I took from that (and perhaps I'm mistaken). This is precisely why I cast the shadow of doubt over what our nature or circumstances might be.

Yes, I get that you are presenting a possibility. But the fact that we discuss morality, that we figure out which concepts are applicable and which are not, that we reason why those concepts are applicable, means we have moved beyond trial and error in this case. The fact that we not only know what works, we also know why it works and when it wouldn't work means we are no longer determining morality using heuristic processes.

The desktop pc's in my example were communicating heuristic solutions between each other, but that did not alter the fact that they were heuristics. Whether or not something is a heuristic has everything to do with the process involved, not whether or not the solution is communicable. Heuristics can be communicated, and in some cases directly require communication as a component of the heuristic. If we wish to invoke the results oriented argument that a heuristic is no longer a heuristic when it is applied by a given agent for a specific goal..well, we haven't actually established that it isn't a heuristsic, because heuristics are also employed by given agents for a given goal. They can also be employed with no direction on the part of the user and they will still achieve a result (this is one of the poiunts in favour of morality evolving out of a hueristic process, for example, as the environment is providing both the problem, the process, and the range of possible solutions). The process is important, and I don't think we disagree here, because you place heavy emphasis on the process of logic in establishing an objective morality. I think our disagreement lies more along the lines of how much impact heuristics or any possible moral heuristics would have on our observations of what morality is (though I would definitely concede that this is not morality as you define it-though I'm not entirely ceratin how you can divorce yourself from morality -as is- merely by definition whilst simultaneously appealing to fact, or reality, or logic, considering that morality already "exists" and may not be what you have defined it to be...). Have we moved beyond trial and error, or are we merely discusing two competing "trial and error" responses to the same question? I'm not sure the two of us will find common ground on this one.

Heuristics is a tool we use - not a necessary part of our nature. If your argument was correct the yes, human morality would not be what we know it to be. But since it is what we know it to be, those implications are irrelevant.

The "but since it is" bit would need more in the elaboration dept (for me). I wasn't aware that anyone had any definitive answer with regards to what morality was, but I may be mistaken.

Actually, that experiment is not a moral question. The moral concept in play is same in both cases - save as many lives as you can. The subject in question is not being asked which option is morally correct, he is being asked which one is economically correct. Heuristics being used to make a moral decision - a decision where outcome is unclear - is not that same as heuristics determining what is morally correct or not.

I agree, in both cases it was an issue of "save as many lives as you can" that the experiment seemed to imply that a heuristic was being employed to determine which of the two options presented was the best course of action would, to me, seem to have implications as to the process being employed in how we go about applying our morality, whatever the hell it may be. I think the process is important, and I think any definitions of what morality is and whether or not we are moral agents that ignores this is merely sweeping difficult problems under the rug.

Except, morality is what I claim it to be because that is how it is defined. I don't need to disprove any other definition which may or may not be applicable as long as mine is.

You did define it as such, but I have repeatedly called into question your definition, and the only response offered thusfar is directly equivalent to "It is what it is because I have said that it is". Well, it may be, but you'd have to demonstrate that, if you want to invoke facts, observations, and reality, wouldn't you (and I think you made it explicitly clear that your objective morality would do so)? I think the best way to consider my opposition here isn't so much as a disagreement, but as a platform or invitation to elaborate upon your definition of morality and why it is the definition we should run with.

It would be relevant, but it is not because our nature is (usually) that of a moral agent.

Excellent, but you still haven't dismissed the heuristics except by definition (which I have repeatedly questioned), and to me, that's not exactly compelling, but again, we don't seem likely to find common ground on this one (because we appear to have unbelievably divergent definitions for what is or is not a heuristic to begin with).

A universal goal.

Morality is a guide that should lead us to something. For example, the aim of religious morality is heaven or happier afterlife. Utilitarian morality aims at maximizing happiness and so on. Therefore, we need to find an objective goal that would not be based simply on the philosopher's choice. Something that would be an inherent part of the human nature. Something that we may point out as not only so what all humans should work towards, but we all do work for.

Common sense suggests that a "happy and fulfilling life" would fill that criteria. But that cannot be established as a fact. And there are simply too many irrational and illogical ideas out there about what constitutes a happy and fulfilling life.

Are you in the "happy and fulfilling life" camp yourself? Personally, if I were to suggest a goal, it would be the perpetuation of human life. I'm not sure that I could demand happiness of any objective morality because happiness is one of those things that almost inevitably leads to conflict when two peoples interest collide (even if the two people in question agree on "the principles of happiness" to begin with, and as you've said, people have some strange ideas of "happiness" we would have to contend with). Then we have to start making even more difficult arguments. Morality, to me, must be practical. It can't be so difficult to employ that we have to agonize over the details every time we go about making a moral decision, or else the heuristics (as I understand them) start to look a hell of alot more worthwhile.