“Normative” ethical theories

[Lucian]

Thanks. I gave that a read and am still unconvinced (unsurprisingly). Game for going through that section by section rather than me give a long rambling reply where it will turn this in to a mess?
Re Morris’ views, he isn’t making a realist or quasi-realist case. He is explicit that it is about “if you want to see x society and if you see x type of behaviour as something you want to avoid then y is the approach to take”. It is an instrumental ought not a realist type of ought so he isn’t confusing any beliefs.
He also doesn’t ground his abolitionism in simply rejecting a metaethical stance. As noted in previous posts it is based on listing the type of things that moral realism has led to, claiming that on the whole moral realism has led to outcomes averse to the type of world that the author wants to see; then saying that if moral realism has caused more problems in that framework then abolition may be the way to go. More steps than that, but claiming he is realist or quasi-realist goes against his very clear assertions that he is an error theorist.