I don’t understand what that means for my situation, though. How am I supposed to argue him out of his current values?
I mean, it’s certainly possible to change someone’s values through anti-realist argumentation. My values were changed in that way several times. But I don’t know how to do it.
How am I supposed to argue him out of his current values?
This is a separate question. I was objecting to the relevance of invoking anti-realism in connection with this question, not to the bottom line where that argument pointed.
If moral realism were true, there would be a very obvious path to arguing someone out of their values—argue for the correct values. In my experience, when people want an argument to change their values, they want an argument for what the correct value is, assuming moral realism.
I don’t understand what that means for my situation, though. How am I supposed to argue him out of his current values?
I mean, it’s certainly possible to change someone’s values through anti-realist argumentation. My values were changed in that way several times. But I don’t know how to do it.
This is a separate question. I was objecting to the relevance of invoking anti-realism in connection with this question, not to the bottom line where that argument pointed.
If moral realism were true, there would be a very obvious path to arguing someone out of their values—argue for the correct values. In my experience, when people want an argument to change their values, they want an argument for what the correct value is, assuming moral realism.
Moral anti-realism certainly complicates things.