Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

The problem is that 500 pages of facts that don't answer the moral question still don't answer the moral question.  Instead, they serve as a red herring.

Perhaps not to you, but that may be down to you preferring some other moral system.  In moral realism, that's exactly what answers a moral question - and the only thing that answers a moral question.

Then moral realism is a bad paradigm.

Seems like -the- point, to me.  What else do you think a realist is talking about when they talk about bad things, harmful things....than things like erosion, landslides, water pollution, and detriment to the health of plants and wildlife, through the destruction of the the natural environment?  

That's the definition of begging the question-- declare X as harm axiomatically, and then point to X harm being done.

Let's say everything we did was maximally harmed to fuck us-- poison the air and lakes, nuke every town, completely wipe out life on the planet. What "objective facts" would you point to to demonstrate that this should not be done? What if I were to point to humans who say things like "I kill animals just for fun," decide that the species, on the whole, is savage and cruel, and decide to go full-bore 12 Monkeys? Can you demonstrate any moral rules that exist independent of a species capable of this level of evil?