Hypothesis: Agreement With Research Project: Ethics

I have a hypothesis about disagreement. To test it, I want to use the problem of objective ethics. Basically, if I can find out the reason we can't agree on an ethical framework, I may be able to fix it. By contrast, if I don't bother to look, I'm guaranteed to be unable to fix it.

My habit of thinking  I'm done and later realizing I'm not will likely affect this post. In this case I plan to deal with it by updating without notice.



So, ethics. Who wants in?

Zeroth, note this is a test of how much you in fact care about ethics. How much patience do you have for attempts to solve the problem? Put up or shut up. I'm willing to keep this thread going until at least next year, with the exception of entertaining repetition.

First, procedure. Second whether it is in fact a solvable problem.

• Work out a spec for objective ethics
• Details:
• What are the necessary and sufficient conditions?
• Include inconsistency tests  
•   Purpose:
• Agree on what we're disagreeing about
•  Determine the candidates for matching the spec
• Basically, lay out what you think
• Pin down the disagreements
• Including disagreements on what we should be disagreeing about
• Including disagreements on how the procedure should go, indeed this should probably come earlier, but the logical hierarchy is what it is...
• Try to fix the disagreements
• My usual habit is to examine the cause and then change the causal facts
• This is where examining assumptions comes in. As rational thought is hardly the only way to come by a belief, this is merely one example. 
•  Presumably, fail. 
• But at least have a reasonable idea of why it failed.
• Maybe fix the fail, depending on what the causes are. 
• At least, predict why it will fail and test it. 

Next, the idea that it can't be solved.
We went to the moon. I can't go to the moon by myself. By contrast, solving a logical puzzle is just a matter of having enough time to invest. While unlikely, I'm not ruling out moral nihilism.
The major epistemic obstacle for the puzzle ties into a practical obstacle. To correct for random biases, it is best to do review by peers, and the practical matter is that to get more ethical behaviour, more have to follow the ethical codes which generally means agreeing to them.



As a complete tangent, has there been more ethics posts lately than usual? I'm even missing at least one, which I'll add if I remember it.
Foseti comments. Spandrell. Aretae links me to Hanson comments. A dude called Thinking Emotions.