(August 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Succubus Wrote:(August 18, 2017 at 9:14 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.
What have you been reading?
With all due respect, I have been participating on AF for almost 4 years compared to you 3 months. I have a pretty good idea of what the dominant philosophical positions are although I sometimes forget what any individual advocates.
