Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

You must mean to say that you suspect I have feelings - but ofc - that's not in dispute by me or any of these different propositions about moral statements.  I could do, and enjoy, all sorts of bad shit, and do.  I could do, and hate, all sorts of good shit - and do.  I can be made to feel shame for doing something that I know is not wrong, and I can be made to feel shame for -failing- to do a thing I know is wrong.  

It's not that I suspect you have feelings.  It's that I doubt there's any other basis for your moral positions.  I think rationale comes at the tail end of the formation of moral positions, not at the beginning.

You can doubt it, but you set such a high bar for you doubt examples to the contrary will never be exhausted, in fact.  

No, but whether the people around him have the same BALANCE of instinctive feelings certainly will.  People have "squee" and "rawr" instinct to varying degrees, and in different ages, they take turns coming to the forefront.

We do, and even in a realist understanding, these are taken into account, just not on the initial consideration of the item in question.  

Well, what makes the good and bad good and bad? Societal norms? Other people's opinions?

-not in any objectivist understanding.  Emphatically not that, and any instance of that, is simply wrong.

If I say I'm right about about x because of peoples opinions about x, or because of societies norms about x...I am materially wrong..and...logically wrong....and...in fact.... not an objectivist. It happens to all of us. I think we both agree that we have to be aware to know..and to avoid it.

need to consult any moral system for that.  The things I'm willing to do, as a set, overlaps with good and bad, as sets, just as it overlaps with what I like and what I don't.   
Well, what makes the good and bad good and bad?  Societal norms?  Other people's opinions?

Negatron.  Any hypothetical facts of an objective system do not need..and are not advanced by, any reference to any particular moral system held by any given moral agent.  They are just true statements about things of a moral import.

It was once pretty normal to disregard the feelings and well-being of black people on the basis of difference, though some might have "hunted niggers just for the fun of it, and don't need to consult any moral system for that."  Now, it's pretty normal to disregard the feelings and well-being of animals, presumably on the basis of difference.  What makes you so sure that a hundred years from now, YOU won't be portrayed as an uncivilized brute, and the statues of everyone you ever admired torn down because they were cross-species cannibals?

It could be historically normal or abnormal to disregard the feeling and well being of black people - but neither thing, is relevant to any objective moral system.

As I said - if these are the reasons - you misunderstand.  Not maybe.  Do.