Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

We constantly have to deal with things that had never before come up, and we sometimes spend time considering the potential ramifications of things that haven't. Ever read any sci fi? Without motivated sentience you may not have observers to see what is good or is bad and give a shit about it, but that doesn't tell you whether or not harm, for example, is present. Ostensibly, a thing can be harmed even when there are no motivated sentient witnesses present. I think it's easier to sell the idea that absent sentient motivated moral agents, moral desert would not be present. That's the factual difference in circumstance between what damage an earthquake does and the same damage done by humans. Sure, earthquakes harm, and can put things in danger, but they're not morally responsible for it. : shrugs :

Sure, what you've said may be as concise and clear as you can make it, but the problem is that it's demonstrably wrong. Factually wrong. Truly inaccurate.

Additionally, incogent. It may be that moral realism itself is wrong, but whatever case there is for that..you've just plain butchered.