Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

Gae and Grandy are naturalists. I find non-naturalism more compelling. But I like naturalism too. I think the arguments for both are compelling. Hell. Moral nihilism even holds sway with me.

But, for the most part, I'm a non-naturalist. And if you ask me, I'll tell you exactly why. Grandy and Gae will also tell you (and have been telling you) why they're naturalists. I'll even give you a sound arguments for moral naturalism if you want one.

There is only one person in this thread who hasn't provided a sufficient or coherent explanation for his moral realism: Acrobat.

Actually, I don't know what I am exactly. And intrinsic may have been the wrong term to use here. I guess objective is more like it. The overall argument I'm trying to make here is that whatever morality is in essence, we set the rules, not some Entity out there.

I was initially answering the question of where oughts come from, not why we ought to do something. My plan wasn't to act like some amazing moral philosopher, just to set things straight with Acrobat, remind him of reality.

I also believe I said "may" before stating intrinsic. But could be wrong.

If wrong is objective, and we ought not do things that are wrong? What rule is society setting, “we ought not do wrong”? It’s just one rule here, that is required if wrong is objective.