[Serious] The Good

[The Grand Nudger]

You're thinking of moral absolutism.

No, I'm not, but your confusion is understandable.  Given that this is off-topic and I don't have the time to adequately address this over the next few days, I'll simply defer to a fuller exploration of the question another day and in another thread.  We never did finish our prior discussion of it due to similar time pressures that precluded my full participation.  I would simply note that if morals are a consequence of empirical facts, then you have managed to square a circle that has eluded greater philosophers.  This either points to the fact that you are, in this department, a philosophical genius, or, it points to the fact that you are a confused boob who doesn't know what you're talking about.  YMMV.

Or, conversely, that it doesn't take a philosophical genius to explain what moral realism is about.  I tend to think that myself. People expect more out of realism than they think (or they're told) it promises.

You were thinking of absolutism, your own comments establish that and there's no room for argument on that count after those comments. Absolutism isn't realism, realism isn't absolutism. IDK, I guess that absolutism may be more satisfying, and maybe that's what people want and they judge things like realism against it.

Oh well, I guess? I can very easily see how realism isn't satisfying. That's hardly limited to moral realism.