Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

That doesn’t follow. It can stem from an obligation to be like that ideal, but not from merely understanding what the ideal is. I may understand what an ideal basketball player is, but that doesn’t mean I ought to be like him.

You could describe in full detail what an ideally good person would look like to you, nothing in those details obligate me to be like such a person.

And that's the difference between you and me. And that's the difference between you and Plato. Do you think morals are obligations? They aren't.

An ought expresses an obligation. If there are no obligations than there are no oughts.

But for those who realize an ideal and strive to attain it, that is moral realism. Moral realism isn't like the law of gravity that you are compelled to follow whether you want to or not. Moral realism is that which you can either ignore or acknowledge. How you treat others is a reality. It is a significant reality. But no one is forcing you to acknowledge this reality.

Let assume x causes harm to others.

I acknowledge this reality, that x causes harm.

Now if I reject the idea that I ought not do things that harm others, what reality am I refusing to acknowledge?

You indicate that oughts don't exist like the law of gravity, as some of sort moral law woven into the fabric of reality, so i don't see how you can suggest that I'm refusing to acknowledge reality, by rejecting the idea that I ought not do things that harm others? You also seem to reject the idea that oughts are personal goals we assign ourself, or imposed on us by our society of our culture, which I think leaves very little room for you here.

Also I was hoping you might at some point be able to answer the questions i had as to whether you subscribe to a teleological view of reality, like Plato does?