Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism

[Iwannaplato]

The above is a strawman.

Nope.

Using the future is offlimits pretty much to anyone in this way. Just as a theist saying in the future God will reveal himself. But it is even more verboten when it comes from an antirealist. You've used the analogy of the star possibly not being there now, it's just light from the past travelling to earth. Here we have merely your guess about the future. FDP criticism was not stupid, it was directly on point.

As stated above, regardless of whether it is now or future;
the principle of my moral FSRC is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. grounded on a collective of subjects [so, it is objective] and not dependent on one subject.

The earth could get hit by an asteroid before the future supposedly will confirm your current claims.

The moral potential is already inherent within all humans and unfolding slowly.
The purpose of my FSRC is [inherently intersubjective] will facilitate to expedite the unfoldment where then more people will be conscious of it, thus accept it with conscious awareness.

Same problem

Popper highlighted the 'polishing' point, regardless, there is a continual improvement in every aspects of human activities.

Popper does not solve the problems in this 'argument'.

Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.

And there you go, appealing to the existence of something that no mind can directly contact.

What nonsense are you talking about.

The future. The future does not exist now. You're an antirealist but you use a future you cannot sense as evidence. And you don't even realize even if it is pointed out several times, here and before in other threads, that this is a problem. Have you ever considered that many of the disagreements people have with you is that they actually read what you claim and apply it? Whereas you just use things as temporary fixes and ignore the implications. You don't even take your own ideas seriously as in apply them to each and see if they fit.

I have defined my FSRC as contingent upon an embodied human based Framework and System.
If it is human-based, how it 'something that no mind can directly contact'.

LOL, those minds and that contact may exist at some point or they may not. I shouldn't have to point this out.

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah>

Your problem is every philosopher's problem: The word "problem" (which expresses a judgment) keeps popping up in your "ontological vocabulary".

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above is a strawman.

Nope.

Using the future is off limits pretty much to anyone in this way. Just as a theist saying in the future God will reveal himself. But it is even more verboten when it comes from an antirealist. You've used the analogy of the star possibly not being there now, it's just light from the past travelling to earth. Here we have merely your guess about the future. FDP criticism was not stupid, it was directly on point.

As stated above, regardless of whether it is now or future;
the principle of my moral FSRC is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. grounded on a collective of subjects [so, it is objective] and not dependent on one subject.

The earth could get hit by an asteroid before the future supposedly will confirm your current claims.

The moral potential is already inherent within all humans and unfolding slowly.
The purpose of my FSRC is [inherently intersubjective] will facilitate to expedite the unfoldment where then more people will be conscious of it, thus accept it with conscious awareness.

Same problem

The above is very unintelligent.

God?? that is a strawman because God is something that is illusory, false and an empirical impossibility.

People had been predicting matters in Science, IT, AI, etc. on their empirical possibility in a future time and many predictions became a reality.
For example, it was predicted ~50 years there is the possibility of the completion of the Human Genome Project and it became a reality in 2003.
The possibility of AI was predicted to be possible many years ago, now it is a reality.
The same had happened in so many fields of reality.

So why it is not for the inherent moral potential that is already existing in all humans at present which is unfolding slowly, to unfold more expeditiously in the future?

Popper highlighted the 'polishing' point, regardless, there is a continual improvement in every aspects of human activities.

Popper does not solve the problems in this 'argument'.

You are just ignorant.
I did not adopt Popper whole project but merely one point, i.e. continuous improvement of theories and continual progress.

Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.

And there you go, appealing to the existence of something that no mind can directly contact.

The future. The future does not exist now. You're an antirealist but you use a future you cannot sense as evidence. And you don't even realize even if it is pointed out several times, here and before in other threads, that this is a problem. Have you ever considered that many of the disagreements people have with you is that they actually read what you claim and apply it? Whereas you just use things as temporary fixes and ignore the implications. You don't even take your own ideas seriously as in apply them to each and see if they fit.

Anything can be predicted to happen in the future as long as it is empirically possible.
It is just a matter of waiting for the evidence to be available to be verified and justified as real.
I can predicted humans could discover dogs somewhere in planet Jupiter because every element in this statement are empirically possible. At present it is unlikely, but the prediction is not something that is absolutely impossible, it is just a matter of making available and confirming the empirical evidences.

You arrogant think you are right but your assertions are based on your ignorance and strawman.

I have defined my FSRC as contingent upon an embodied human based Framework and System.
If it is human-based, how it 'something that no mind can directly contact'.

LOL, those minds and that contact may exist at some point or they may not. I shouldn't have to point this out.

Nope, its the principle, as long as it is defined as human-based than the mind is directly involved and in contact.

What I am proposing with my human-based morality-proper FSRC [moral function] is based on what is currently inherent in the brain/mind of all humans.
It is possible, this function and competence can be quantified within a moral quotient [MQ].
If the current average MQ is 100, then with my moral-FRSC when implemented, it is likely in the future, say 50-100 years the average MQ will increase to 500.

The problem is you are so ignorant and making strawman[s] with arrogance.