That was an interesting paper.
*I will summarize the paper, which was interesting:
It goes through, one by one, the common denials of moral
realism.
It does not present an argument *for* moral realism, but rather
seems to act as a challenge. Put more simply, the paper is
saying:
"HERE, MORAL RELATIVISTS: these are your arguments. I shall
destroy them one by one".
At the end the author doubts that it's possible to refute moral
realism at all.
It's a "God of the gaps" position so to speak; an interesting
stance as it does not need to define itself precisely, but
rather it is a stance that says, "Go ahead. Fight my position.
You can't".
Definitely an interesting read. Granted, I didn't read it. I
scanned the bold face and the conclusion and introduction. But
the main argument was clear.
