Purzafer

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal You dont need to be okay with anyone and you dont need to pretend that you value their values exactly as much as you value yours. There is no such entailment under antirealism, and thats a common confusion about it.

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal So what exactly supposed to be a unique problem here that you dont have if moral realism is true?

People can occupy a ton of different positions whether or not they believe in moral facts. It's the laziest, most 20 IQ high school Christian take to go "oh, this guy doesn't believe in moral facts, therefor everything is arbitrary and trivial and they can believe in anything!!!"

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal and if you cant, well then you cant persuade that society or that person, but then we can talk about punishments and force, but again the exact same issue comes up under realism as well. What if a person or society dont care to follow those objective moral facts?

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal You make your proposition about.

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal * you check what that person /society cares about

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal You can freely reject everything even if moral realism is true - I wouldnt care 1 bit if eating pizza was objectively good. To the question of "why should anyone follow/care" - the answer is the same , you can what that person society cares about and try to link it to the thing

@Enpapchapado @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal Im not tracking what the issue suppose to be there , is that just a point about persuasion ? Because lets grant that there is a moral fact that says that you ought to eat pizza - what would that change in contrast to what you brought up there?

@Puzarfer @CWonderGM @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal Respectifuly you are missing the point. The correct analogy would be if Destiny claimed that people should be forced to eat Pizza because it is a good thing while at the same time saying that it being good is completely subjective.

@CWonderGM @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal No i dont think its a problem - just the same way I dont think that I would need to make a realist justification about taste to establish that gastronomical realism is false. In fact, that would be a confused error since the position entails there are no gastronomical facts.

@Puzarfer @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal "If moral antirealism is true, then you cant give a realist justification" - like da , dude.

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal If you exclude justification from non-realist frames , then yeah, trivially you cant justify anything, but that would be a non-common usage of "justification". If moral antirealism is true, then I dont know what kind of justification you would expect in the pscho case.

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal You guys like to repeat that talking-point but you never do anything other than just claim it to be the case , but then never make any supporting argument for it. Its often also the case that almost none of you know even the basics about metaethics

@Puzarfer @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal But the materialist cannot, because in simple terms everything is subjective, so you cannot define objectively, normatively, that doing X is wrong, you just cant, you would have no basis for it.

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal Whats God's justification for why should anyone give a fck about his moral intuitions?

@Puzarfer @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal I dont appeal to moral realis, we are talking about practical things like justifying a law that is going to arrest the psycho. If there is no moral objectivity you cannot justify the prison besides pure utilitarism.

@CWonderGM @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal I think most debates about moral realism and anti realism isn't necessary to answer certain questions that you find important or useful. For instance if your questions can be boiled down to descriptive facts, then we can answer those questions, without any moral debates.

@CWonderGM @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal I think you confused my answer with me endorsing a society relative ethics. I interpreted your question as a descriptive question about how a given society decides what behavior is normal - and the answer to that is complex.

@CWonderGM @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal I dont have a simple answer to that given that I dont think moral realism is true, so there is a complex set of things that outlines how and why we make certain laws and those laws outline what behavior is considered to be okay in a given society.

@Puzarfer @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal Certain norms? Who determines what is objectively normal in society? Not a gotcha, just genuinely curious about your perspective.

@CWonderGM @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal The whole point was to establish that persuasion and abiding by certain norms (like what you need to be okay with or if you can criticize others or not) is a seperate and orthogonal issue to the moral realism vs anti-realism discourse.

@Puzarfer @Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @TheOmniLiberal Just because I can’t persuade a psychopath to do the morally right thing doesn’t mean that moral facts don’t exist. That’s like saying because I can’t persuade a person that the earth is round that means the earth is flat.

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal Its not like you are going to perusade a psychopath to not do his thing just by appealing to moral realism. None of that is persuasive to most people, what that psycho would care about is the consequence and punishment, but that can be given under moral antirealism as well.

@Enpapchapado @JonathanRueb @CWonderGM @TheOmniLiberal You are confusing justification with perusasion and with what you need to be okay with. Its not like moral realism in and of itself is persuasive to most people and its not like moral realism perusades people to not do things that most people would consider bad.