(August 14, 2019 at 10:00 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Did that response even make sense in your own head?
You contended that realists already subscribe to some goal. I corrected you and asked if this was your problem with realism, to which you replied “yes”.....
.......and then bitched about some other thing you’re wrong about, that’s already been corrected.
It’s starting to look like your problem with realism is just that you have absolutely no idea what it is, or how to object to it. Those two things are probably™ related, and you could solve the latter by solving the former...at any time you wanted to unclog your ears.
As I keep telling you, you don’t have to agree with realism to accurately describe its content, but you do have to accurately describe its content to disagree with it.
X is bad, all of us regardless of whether we are realist, subjectivist can acknowledge x is bad. The holocaust is bad, all of us can acknowledge the holocaust is bad regardless of whether we see at as subjectively or objectively bad.
The problem with folks like yourself (but I cant say for all natural realist), is that they try and locate the objectiveness of "badness" and "goodness" within the historical facts about x.
They strongly think it works, but it doesn't. It's just as much a failure as my pizza taste realist trying to locate the objectiveness of the goodness and badness, in the scientific facts about the pizza.
If taste are not objective, if moral goals are not objective, the failure is all the way down. Terms like good and bad have no meaning, outside of a goal, just like good and bad when it comes to pizza, have no meaning outside of tastes.
Your insistence that it's not is just nonsense, and if it's representative of moral realist as a whole, then it's all garbage all the way down, unsalvageable garbage.
