It seems more useful to defer the problem of "what is right" temporarily and pursue instead the related problem: "what do people think is right?". This latter question can be approached from the perspective of traditional science. One develops a descriptive moral theory that makes a prediction (e.g. "most people will judge the actions of a man who steals to feed his family to be morally acceptable"), and then you test the prediction by giving out a lot of surveys. The theories developed in this way will of course be subject to Occam's Razor, but if a lot of data were obtained, one could justify the construction of complex models.

If a good descriptive moral theory could be found, it would be widely useful. One could then state a strong normative principle: act in such a way that the theory judges to be acceptable. This solution is not perfect, but if we hold out for perfection we will be waiting a long time.