I think this is completely off the mark. There have never been low-hanging fruit in morality, you are judging moral issues of the past with a presentist bias, but they were contentious issues in their time. Just like present moral issues are going to be viewed as obvious in the future.
You say any moral theory has to be accepted by rational agents, but what if the people rejecting the theory are not being rational? The theory is still valid regardless of what other people say. Many theories are rejected by their contemporaneous judges, only to be accepted in the future (when the person proposing it has already died).
I also don't think freedom and reason are the only values of importance. Freedom and reason are valued because of something much deeper: they improve the well-being of societies that embrace them. But it's the well-being of agents that morality should attempt to maximize.
Because of all this, the theory of Sam Harris which he explains in The Moral Landscape seems accurate to me.
To me morality is simply the discipline that explores what is good. And it would be a net positive if we could agree on an objective morality based on first principles, but your proposal needs more work.
I think this is completely off the mark. There have never been low-hanging fruit in morality, you are judging moral issues of the past with a presentist bias, but they were contentious issues in their time. Just like present moral issues are going to be viewed as obvious in the future.
You say any moral theory has to be accepted by rational agents, but what if the people rejecting the theory are not being rational? The theory is still valid regardless of what other people say. Many theories are rejected by their contemporaneous judges, only to be accepted in the future (when the person proposing it has already died).
I also don't think freedom and reason are the only values of importance. Freedom and reason are valued because of something much deeper: they improve the well-being of societies that embrace them. But it's the well-being of agents that morality should attempt to maximize.
Because of all this, the theory of Sam Harris which he explains in The Moral Landscape seems accurate to me.
To me morality is simply the discipline that explores what is good. And it would be a net positive if we could agree on an objective morality based on first principles, but your proposal needs more work.