unedited

Metha-ethics for hundreds of years has set the standard for analyzing ethical propositions. These propositions are removed from the field of human experience and reside solely in the minds of men. Words that refer to other words decide the outcome of ethical debates. The logical referent in meta-ethics is grounded in other arguments, none of which as ever been firmly resolved. Meta-ethics is the creative ground of ethics and in such light takes liberties not accorded a more scientific approach to reasoning a problem. This is where new ideas are often born but not resolved. If you were to ask an ethicist where the evidence for a proposition might lay they could not point in the direction of anything substantial. If you ask a scientist where the evidence lay that there once was water on Mars they could present you with a whole galaxy of tangible evidence that more-or-less fits seamlessly into an argument supporting the past existence of water on Mars. If you were to ask a physicist who studied string theory where the evidence lay for the proposition that strings exist, he or she could not point to to the evidence because a string is so small it cannot be measured. If a string were the tallest of trees that is how large a string would be compared to the size of the universe. The reason string theory persists as credible theory is because the theory integrates well over a broad spectrum of other theories concerning natural phenomenon. Meta-ethical theories do not integrate well into a broader range of human experience. According to meta-ethical theory you never can conclude any human activity such as murder, theft, or violence is wrong. You can never define right, wrong, good or good ness. You can never make a conclusion from "what is"  such as drinking a liter of hard liquor and driving to what "ought" to be. This meta-ethical problem is the elephant in the living room that philosophers keep swept under the rug. Morality can be said to arise in part from the visceral responses of mature and experienced people looking out for the interests of others less experienced. Human experience in this light plays a central role in the evolution of ethical systems that combines the visceral experiences of being moral or immoral and codifies them into a system of ethical rules.

Meta-ethical reasoning vastly over simplifies the construction of situations from which moral conclusions are made. One of the most notable is the prisoners dilemma. Here two prisoners compete to garner favor from their captors. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  The problem with arguments such as these is that human relationships are greatly oversimplified. Instead of having a few variables to determine the outcome of events, you would to incorporate a hundred or more other subtle influences on the prisoners decisions. Human beings are incredibly complex. In cybernetic ethics the object is to chart an immense number of influences and emotions that affect people's behavior. Such an undertaking is as large or larger than the charting the human genome. But, such research is necessary if scientists and ethicists are ever to move to a higher plane of understanding behavior. To illustrate the complexity of any human task the following is an outline of just how one might define the word good.