One thing that I find interesting about this...

Is that some philosophers claim that IF people were ideally rational AND comperably informed of the relevant matters of fact THEN there would be convergence in what people think we *should* do. (That is to say that if people agreed on the facts and followed through similar chains of logical reasoning then people would agree on their moral beliefs).

It is a bit controversial, of course. Some people think that you could still get radically divergent ethical systems DESPITE convergence on matters of fact and the employment of similar logical reasoning.

What I do wonder, however, is how much ethical disputes are about disagreement over the facts and how much they would remain even if there was agreement over the facts.

For example. People who are pro people privately owning guns for self defence seem to think that gun ownership PREVENTS people committing crimes against them. People who are anti people privately owning guns for self defence seem to think that gun ownership CAUSES more harms than they prevent. The dispute seems to come down to a disagreement over matters of fact. I wonder if the empirical studies were able to tell us the way the facts actually fall if that would put an end to the dispute or whether the dispute would remain.

Similarly about porn. Those who are pro porn seem to think that minimal harm results from porn. Those who are anti porn seem to think that quite a lot of harm results from porn. Will the scientists settle the issue by finding out the relevant facts or will the dispute remain even once the facts come in?

Not sure...