If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

There are bad things - the moral fact.
holocaust is a bad thing - the value judgement.
we should avoid doing bad things because of x - the evaluative proposition.  

Lets try the same thing  with food taste.

1.)There are bad things (things that taste bad), and good things (things that taste good). A taste fact

Indian food tastes bad - the value judgement

We should avoid eating things that taste bad because of x - the evaluative proposition.

I’m a taste realist. I believe in objective tastism.

Tell me why this argument for objective tastism is false, since it borrows your basic logic.


Or let's try it alternatively.

I think that peoples tastes are explicitly subjective. I suppose we may be able to generalize some things, we share a massive amount of our biology and that does actually include the way things taste to us. Those things would be the only things that I would include in a final revision of any "taste objectivism". You're not really grasping the fact that a realist doesn't have to insist that there are no subjective value judgements, are you?

2.)There are bad things, just like there are yellow things, and blue things, and circle things, and square things.

Yep.

Moral Goodness and Badness exist independently of us, \

Yep.

reality possess good and bad moral properties,

Nope. Part/whole.

that exist indepedently of our minds, just like yellow and blue do.

Yep.

Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.

Nope. Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there. They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.

A persons inability to see the bad or good things, is sort of like being color blind, and not seeing the objective yellowness of  my wife’s dress.

Nope. They may simply lack relevant facts, or be in possession of an alternative set of facts.

Until you can establish a superstitious requirement to moral realism or civil rights this is as doa as it was the first time you asserted it. Simple empirical facts such as the existence of atheists in the civil rights movement and the preponderance of atheists advocating for moral realism, combined with the presence of influential atheists in both areas tells me that you're just flat out wrong.

No atheists and others have and can support and be a part of things like the civil rights movement, and lack the basic moral commitments of folks like MLK, in his belief in a moral order of the cosmos. But their lack of such commitments render them unable to rise above sheep following a shepherd willing to make the commitments they refuse to, or an unable too.  They’re lack of commitments to such beliefs renders them unable to be an MLK, though they can be supportive followers of him.

Saying it over and over won't make it true.  : shrugs :