this debate on moral realism basically comes down to whether you have any intuitions at all about irreducibly normative truths existing. if you don’t then there’s no way to get a hold on someone into the non-naturalist realist camp. but this makes me wonder what evidence would even be possible to give a radical empiricist that irreducible normative or moral truths exist. i suspect none is possible and that they’re “deliberatively out of reach”

which reminds me of this phenomenon i see happen with anti-realists whereby after spending enough time in the meta-ethics mines, their commitments to a reductionist, empiricist worldview force the realist intuitions out of them. but that’s not how most people start out. most people, without having their intuitions altered by huffing too much metaethics papers would say “yes killing jews is really wrong” in an irreducibly realist sense. if anti-realists continue to spread their message, i suspect the masses may be deliberatively out of reach in time