Veganism

[Paleophyte]

Agreement might be an indicator of 'moral progress', but you don't have that, so the point is moot.

You seem to be saying: "If there were objective moral truths, people would mostly agree.

People don’t agree.

Therefore, no objective moral truths."

But it's not the case that if there were moral truths then people would mostly agree.

Disagreement is only evidence against realism if realism predicts agreement.

Why should disagreement count as evidence against realism, but agreement not count as evidence for it?

Disagreement and agreement both happen. Neither, on its own, decisively supports realism or anti-realism.

It demonstrates that there is no evidence for these 'moral truths' that you're babbling about. This has been my point from the beginning.

If realism doesn't predict agreement, then it predicts pretty useless 'moral truths'.