If you find a button that gives you $100 if a certain controversial meta-ethical view is true, but it burns you and your family alive if that view is false, should you press the button? No.
I like your criticisms of realism but I think antirealists concede far too much to non-naturalist moral realists. I have yet to hear an adequate account of what non-naturalist normative realism would amount to that struck me as intelligible.
I have no idea what it would mean for something to "matter" independently of how much it matters to someone, or from some point of view. Something can matter to me, or matter according to some standard, but I don't think anything can "matter" simpliciter any more than an activity could be "fun" independent of how much fun anyone has or would have by engaging in the activity.
As such, I don't even know how to assign a percentage to the possibility of non-naturalist normative realism of any kind (moral realism or otherwise) since I'm not convinced such position are meaningful or reflect actual propositions.
I like your criticisms of realism but I think antirealists concede far too much to non-naturalist moral realists. I have yet to hear an adequate account of what non-naturalist normative realism would amount to that struck me as intelligible.
I have no idea what it would mean for something to "matter" independently of how much it matters to someone, or from some point of view. Something can matter to me, or matter according to some standard, but I don't think anything can "matter" simpliciter any more than an activity could be "fun" independent of how much fun anyone has or would have by engaging in the activity.
As such, I don't even know how to assign a percentage to the possibility of non-naturalist normative realism of any kind (moral realism or otherwise) since I'm not convinced such position are meaningful or reflect actual propositions.