The Struggle to do Good

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me make this simple for you.

True propositions are tied to reality in some way. The proposition "The universe is 13.8 billion years old" is true and it's tied to reality. We are able to measure the age of the universe.

Good, you accept the existence of facts.  That's a requirement of moral realism.  It remains the case that a persons belief in the statement, and their justification for the statement, can be subjective or objective.  

Do you think that the statement "the universe is 13.8 billion years old" puprports to report a fact of the matter x, or a fact of the subject x..for example..."Bill said so"?

You allege the proposition "It's evil to randomly kill people" is true. Great. But since you believe the proposition is true, then it must be tied to something in reality. What is it tied to?

Randomness isn't a requirement.  Yes, I think that killing people is bad.  My assessment is tied to facts of the matter x, the matter x..being killing people.  Not whether or not bill told me not to kill.  

You are being "prompted," you dingus. But under atheism, this "prompting" is from a mindless and unguided natural processes. Has this thought never occurred to you?

You're arguing over who the better moral agent is.  This is a fact of the subject x.  

If you insist that my moral agency is a mindless, unguided process, then fine.  For that statement and moral realism to be true, then mindless unguided processes must be capable of assessing whether a moral statement purports to report a fact, reports those facts it purports to report, and gets those facts right.  They must be capable of computation. It's a pretty low bar. Computers exist, and do that.

Have you given any thought to which position best describes your own thoughts on the matter of human morality, and which position offers the strongest hurdle for moral realism? Your objections would strongly imply that you believe subjectivism to be the most difficult hurdle for moral realism, and I agree. I'm a moral realist, and I notice that alot of our moral statements properly refer to some fact of a subject x, rather than a fact of a matter x. Many refer to our attitudes, opinions, and nature. Many refer to a gods attitudes, opinions, and nature. This is called function subjectivism (more often functional relativity). A moral realist can hold the position that much of our moral content is in error by objective metrics, even if it accurately states opinions, attitudes, and quirks of nature. You noted yourself, earlier, that people disagree over moral contents.