Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, I think that you can.  I think that we can at least make some sense of the distinctions between moral systems, and recognize that even though we may think that one or more of those positions is susbstantially inaccurate..it isn't because the positions are fundamentally flawed and couldn't be true due to some underlying defect of inference. We can disagree with each other, those positions, and even have internal tension between the positions..without imagining that all of the ones we've ruled out or don't quite get are trivialities or fallacies.

Every answer to every question on that chart, for example..leads to a position with consistent semantics, valid means of inference, and robust academic support.

(additionally, I think that understanding what stop one gets off at will help to illuminate those objections between positions which are valid, rather than incosistent or incogent objections - you can't respond to a non-cognitivist the same way that you respond to an error theorist (as a realist) - because they aren't advocating for the same positions...the thing they think the realists got wrong is not the same thing, and non cognitivists think that error theorists are wrong for the same reason that realists are. That's bound to clear away some of the dross - and..if youi do respond the same way then at least half of the people you're talking to are left unsatisfied, thinking you haven't answered the question..and it only gets weirder when an error theorist fields non-cog objections not realizing that they are expressing an incoherent objection with respect to their own position. No answer, then, can satisfy, and they don't even know why - because they are in a state of unrecognized internal conflict. -They- don't know what they mean, or think...so what are the odds of them coming to an understanding of someone else's position?)