Moral Oughts

[Acrobat]

I am of that view, but Gae and Grandizer don’t see the ought as following from the moral facts. For them a moral fact, like stealing is bad, is just another way of saying stealing is harmful.

They don’t view moral statements like stealing as bad as normative, but descriptive. Stealing is bad may be objectively true, but you ought not steal or so bad things is not, at least according to them.

Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed my starving children a moral act, or immoral?

What would you say?

How about if i stole a loaf of bread from another starving family that needed it just as much as I did?

I would say you're doing something bad "stealing a loaf of bread", for the sake of something good "saving your children from starving". 
If someone stole my bread to save their children from starving, by all means steal it.

---

Realism doesn’t negate any materialistic account of the world.  It doesn’t even need one.

Materialistic accounts are just immensely useful for describing phenomena.

The whiff comes from listening to religious people butcher realism.  It’s frustrating.  We end up acting as-if we were realists anyway.

I was speaking about the nature of normative moral statements. Not the particular realism view you described, where moral statements are purely descriptive.