Moral Stance & Deep Learning, Encoding?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical_realists [mind-independence] are driven by an evolutionary default with very dominant primal force that hinder their learning and cognition to a very shallow, narrow, dogmatic, rigid knowledge base, becomes very ideological and fortified with a strong defense mechanism.

The philosophical_realists' clinging desperately to an illusory absolutely mind-independent reality lead the philosophical realists to insist there are no mind-independent moral facts because moral elements [whatever is related to morality] can never be absolutely mind-independent.

Philosohical_realists [anti-Moral_Realists] moral elements are restricted to rightness and wrongness and elements which are highly subjective [related to human conditions].
As such what is Morality can NEVER be Objective nor of Realism.

Philosophical_Realists' arrogance in rejecting Morality as Objective is based on their ignorance of their grounding on an evolutionary default which is illusory.
They are ignorant -on their basis as realists - they are expressing their knowledge as 'children' or non-human animals.
As such, they do not have any credibility to denounce Moral Objectivity or Moral Realism [proper] based on such 'childish' grounds.

Here are where Philosophical Realist are directed to think like 'Children': [mine]

[Children are Realists]
It hardly needs be added that perceptual representation as of bodies does not constitutively require representation of mind-independence or of a seems/is distinction.
Human children have perceptions as of bodies before they have any representation of mind-independence as such.
Few if any non-human animals represent mind or mind-independence—ever.
Bodies are mind-independent, of course.
We come to understand this point once we acquire the concepts needed to raise the issue.
Perceiving and conceiving bodies as such does not require a capacity to understand the point.

Children’s representations are realist in this very basic sense: they represent a mind-independent reality without engaging in or presupposing any reference to mind.

Children and non-human animals are realists not because they represent bodies as mind-independent, but because they cannot help but ignore idealism.
We as philosophers [philosophical realists] should emulate the children.

Origins of Objectivity: pg 549
Tyler Burge

On the other hand, ANTI-Philosophical_Realists recognized there are objective moral facts as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK based on a deeper, wider knowledge base.

What is needed for philosophical_realists to understand the broader, deeper and more realistic aspects of reality and thus the existence objective moral facts is the "deep learning" [& other modern methods of processing knowledge, encoding, etc.] of AI which human already had been doing naturally.
There is a ton of research on this subject out there in the internet.

Views? Discuss?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: KIV

[Age]

Is this one even AWARE that 'it' IS CONTRADICTING, and FIGHTING AGAINST, 'its' OWN 'self' here?

1. 'it' SAYS, and STATES, that there is NO 'objectivity' in regards to ACTUAL 'physical objects' as there were absolutely NO 'physical objects', like stars and planets for example, existing BEFORE 'human being thinking' came along.

However,

2. 'it', ALSO, SAYS, and STATES, that there is AN 'objectivity' in regards to 'morality', which, OBVIOUSLY, is some 'thing' that has only come about AFTER 'human being thought', came along.

Now, to make 'matters' WORSE here this one CLAIMS that A 'moral objectivity' EXISTS, but which 'it' is NOT even ABLE TO inform 'us' of what 'it' IS EXACTLY. Therefore, HOW does 'it' KNOW there IS AN 'objective morality'?

Obviously, if one can NOT even TELL 'us' what some 'thing' IS, or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then they have NO idea AT ALL IF 'it' exists, or NOT.