The good opinion of mankind, like the lever of Archimedes, with the given fulcrum, moves the world.
There are some particular moral truths that I believe we have access to (such as the one not to inflict pain on a sentient being for no reason).
You should not take the content of your intuitive response as evidence until you have submitted your psychological reaction to what I call cognitive psychotherapy. You should do what you can to learn as much as possible about the origin of your reaction.
If two norms conflict, if they are mutually inconsistent, then at least one of them must be false.
It is true (independently of our conceptualisation) that it is wrong to inflict pain on a sentient creature for no reason (she doesn't deserve it, I haven't promised to do it, it is not helpful to this creature or to anyone else if I do it, and so forth). But if this is a truth, existing independently of our conceptualisation, then at least one moral fact (this one) exists and moral realism is true. We have to accept this, I submit, unless we can find strong reasons to think otherwise.
I believe that one basic question, what we ought to do, period (the moral question), is a genuine one. There exists a true answer to it, which is independent of our thought and conceptualisation.
I am indeed a moral realist.
Much of the world's moral compass is broken. The moral north reads south and the moral south reads north.
A big part of managing a golf course is managing your swing on the course. A lot of guys can go out and hit a golf ball, but they have no idea how to manage what they do with the ball. I've won as many golf tournaments hitting the ball badly as I have hitting the ball well.
If you are telling the truth, then you can speak gently, and your words will have power.
I like melodrama because it is situated just at the meeting point between life and theater.