What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm usually the one telling people that things which aren't seen to be conscious might actually be....but here...I think you're just spouting off.

Well then that's that.  You're not discussing the same thing that moral theorists are.  

Now, might we expect you..like the neolithic hunter, if you could absorb the knowledge required to understand what they're talking about as he could absorb the knowledge of what a fire extinguisher does, to come to a rational agreement on the subject of our discussion?

You type a lot, but support very little.  Tell me, in your view, where do evaluations come from?  Are there evaluations without subjective agents?  Explain, since you seem to think so, by what mechanism anything could be said to have value if, for example, sentient life was wiped out?

LOLNOPE, we were right there at the ledge.  I'll ask again.  Do you think that if you understood what moral theorists are discussing when they talk about objectivity and subjectivity, mind dependence and mind independence, it might resolve some disagreement?

Or..resolve some confusion? Confusion, for example..in the fact that a moral realist will tell you that...no, as far as we're aware there is no evaluation in the absence of a mind or at least something capable of evaluation.