Veganism

[Paleophyte]

No, it simply isn't assuming that what we take for morality here and now is what we'll be viewing as moral a century from now. Every generation before us made that assumption and they were wrong.

The possibility of morality being objective is perfectly compatible with morality in the here and now not being morally correct. My point about agreement being evidence of moral progress was merely to be symmetrical with your point about disagreement being evidence of relativism. I'm perfectly fine with agreement not being evidence of moral realism but then by the same logic you can't say that disagreement is evidence of anti-realism. Otherwise you're trying to have it both ways and being inconsistent.

When I said that you were begging the question it's because you were saying that what's considered moral now is just what's fashionable, when that is exactly the point that was in question. The question is is morality relative or isn't it? And if agreement isn't evidence of realism then disagreement isn't evidence of anti-realism.

You seem to be confused about what I'm saying. Or confused about what you're saying. Allow me to simplify. You don't have the 'progress' or 'agreement' that your argument requires. Progress and agreement implicitly require the very moral absolutes that you're trying to demonstrate, so congrats on simply defining your position into existence. What you have is morality 'advancing' to the present level. Every previous culture had that. The Colonial Era powers in Europe used it to justify genocide on a breathtaking scale because they were bringing 'civilization' to the 'backward barbarians'. That isn't morality. That's you in the here-and-now deciding that you're the first jumped-up chimpanzee in the history of history to finally get it right when every chimp that came before you made exactly the same mistake.

The evidence indicates that previous generations lacked what you call 'moral facts', or ignored them if they had them. Given that track record, it's questionable that we have them now. One might call the assumption hubris. Given this lack of 'moral fact', how do you even pretend to know that these 'moral facts' exist?