Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

-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.  

I'm confused how a moral system works, in your view.  I agree that a social consensus is a poor basis for objective morality-- because if you look at the objective mores across time, they are often polar opposites.  One would assume that truth itself is unambiguous.

Not, not poor, completely invalid.  That's not what objectivism is.  Moralities of social consensus are moral relativism.

But I can only see an objective MECHANISM for morality-- feelings predicated on hormones predicated on brain function predicated on DNA predicated on pre-humans, pre-mammals, pre-vertebrates and so on.  An incredible amount of living and dying has gone into every SHOULD decision that we make.

Feelings predicated on hormones is not an objective mechanism.  That's noncognitivism - distinct from realism, relativism, and subjectivism..because it's not about truth apt statements at all - emotivism, instinctualism, etc. "Yuck!" "Yay!" and "Rawr!" are not true or false propositions about anything.

What would an objective fact be, and how would it do anything other than sway which subjective mores we adopt in a particular culture, clime or era?  (not an argument, by the way, but I need some simple and concrete examples in order to really understand what you're saying)

You see all the claims to fact you've made in this post?  That's you purporting to report facts.  Realism or objectivism are systems in which moral statements are handled the same way.  That's it, that's all.

Is a realist understanding that important or useful? Sometimes. Let's ask the witches.