Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're interested in "realism," then explain how that particular paradigm applies to the OP, or to our discussions of morality.  In what way can you arrive at a sensible moral world view that is based purely on what is real, rather than (as I suggest) imagining a non-existent other-world, which is inherently non-factual?

In a realist understanding, we can prove a moral fact the same way we would go about proving any other kind of fact.  You arrive at a sensible moral worldview the same way you arrive at a sensible view of anything else.  The latter, I think, is a lower bar.  

Keep in mind that in this discussion, we are currently not considering real burning witches.  We are imagining once-burned witches of another era.  We recognize an imagined world in which scenes of burning-at-the-stake is abhorrent.

Oh we probably are, aren't we?  They burnt witches then, we find creative ways to kill even more now for equally absurd and counter-factual reasons.   

In short-- I don't think the kind of moral views you are discussing are coherent.  I think that you THINK they are, but in fact it's an example of the kinds of categorical conflation I mentioned earlier.  If you are actually willing to lay claim to any moral position, and explain why you take that position, I'm pretty sure I can demonstrate that it matches my definition morality-- and that this could not be otherwise.

So go ahead-- take a clear position on anything, and explain why you hold that position in unambiguous terms.  Prove me wrong!

Misusing a word again.  Realism is coherent - you simply disagree with it for reasons unrelated to realism as you tell them.