A common objection to moral subjectivism is that it makes moral error basically impossible, since what you consider good or right just is what’s good or right. Subjectivists try to get around this by saying that we aren’t always aware of exactly what our values actually are, or exactly how those values play out practically — but even if this allows them to say that what they consider good or right inside a non-reflective posture isn’t always what’s actually good or right, it seems to me they still can’t avoid saying that what they actually consider good or right is necessarily good or right. And isn’t that still sorta crazy?

Like, the possibility of legitimate error seems so central to basically any functional moral system — I just can’t imagine being committed to the idea that, “deep down,” I truly value every single thing that’s valuable and nothing that isn’t, or that I couldn’t possibly be wrong on a fundamental level about what is or isn’t the right thing to do. That just seems… ridiculous? Absurd? Obviously false? What am I missing?