[Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds

[Angrboda]

That's how you think it should work, not how it does work, in those systems.  There are bound to be tons of differences in a moral situation that resolve to subjective differences.  Realist thinking about abortions or environmental activism or any other thing - moral responsibility in general- don't rule these things out or even ignore them.

Moral realists very often are and moral realism allows for descriptive subjectivity and descriptive relativity.  Those things are, themselves, facts - and facts are what realism concerns itself with.

We were talking about what harm is, remember? Not about unrelated aspects of these moral theories. If subjective factors change whether something is harm then my example applies. Moral realism which considers the harm something other than the death of my father or his roommate are not relevant as that is not what is at issue here. If you have a system in which either the harm to my father or his roomate is not an issue, or in which the harm to my father and the harm to his roomate is the same, then present it. When and if you do I suspect that the system you present will be unusual. You make a lot of vague claims about moral theory in general. That's effectively an argument from authority with you as the authority. You're not an authority. And when I ask for specifics you always demur. I suspect the reason is that you don't actually understand the specifics to the degree that you think you do. The way to resolve that is to talk about the specifics, those of the case, and of the system which you think deviates. But you never talk specifics because vague handwaving statements is what you're better at.