Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

If at any point a purported factual conclusion relies on the specific emotional biases of the issuer, it -is rejected.  That's the entire point of moral realism.  

In subjectivist moral theories, for example, this can't be done, as all moral utterances are such, and that's the valid expression of moral utterance.

Yes, I know that's the point of moral realism-- that there are objective mores out there which are NOT dependent on opinion or feelings, on any level. "Some things are just bad because they are bad, no matter WHO is considering them."

But I consider it horseshit, as somehow, magically, it turns out that all those objective harms and bads are things that. . . people don't like.