Deconversion and some doubts

[GrandizerII]

But Good exists, and we both agree it does. So the matter is settled, and we agree on that.

Yes, we both agree on this.

Nor has he proven that you can't get an ought from an is.

In my view one derived the ought from the Good, and not from the “is”/the facts on the ground. The “is” is descriptive, while the Good is normative.

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.

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.

Yes, I think morals are an obligation, more real than any other obligation. But this doesn’t mean we are compelled to follow them whether we want to or not, like the laws of gravity.

The similarity here would be to love. I love my daughters more than anything else in the world. Love places a great deal of demands and obligations on me, to not fail them, or do them wrong, to raise them rightly, to be a good example, etc... These obligations placed on me by love, are more real to me than any sort of legal obligations.

I don’t see the Good, as some sort of pretty dress in the window, which can be admired from a distance at how pretty it is, but like that of an intrusive wife. The Good illuminates our failures to be good, exposes the weight of it, a father you want to love and kill at the same time.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that when the man who tried to tell his friends in the cave about the Good, he wasn’t welcomed as someone giving them a great gift, but preferred to kill him instead.

Stronger obligation, maybe. But that's a difference in degree, not a qualitative difference.