Veganism

[Disagreeable]

It seems like you’re treating disagreement as evidence against realism but not treating agreement as evidence in the other direction. What’s the principled basis for that asymmetry?

The one where you've failed to demonstrate agreement. What part of that confuses you?

But you're saying that if people agree on moral matters it's not real agreement, it's just what's fashionable or it's a fluke 'it's just a lucky shot' to use your analogy.

But what is your justification for it just being a lucky shot, and not being real agreement?

You're acting like this is obvious but you're still begging the question. What's in question is precisely: why can't we have real agreement that is evidence in favor of realism if we can have disagreement that counts in favor of anti realism? What is your argument for agreement not being real agreement?

To put it another way, why should we prefer your analogy over the analogy of somebody who is initially a very bad shot when it comes to shooting an arrow at a target, but with lots of practice becomes a better shot, despite perhaps still being a bad shot, and hits the target more often due to improved skill rather than just lucky shots (so there is more agreement later on, moral progress)?