As someone who has spent a lot of time with religious conservatives, I've heard the sort of argument given by Robertson many times before. And they use it as an actual argument used against nihilism, which they tend to think follows directly from atheism. So Scott is completely right to address it as such.
I think Robertson conflates the two because he (and others like him) can't really imagine a coherent non-arbitrary atheist moral realist theory. Can anyone here give a good example of one that couldn't include what the murderer he depicts seems to believe?
Why does Robertson, or anyone else, insist on moral realism? And what exactly does he mean by it?
There seem to be different usages of "moral realism", which is confusing. The main two are:
Morals are an objective property of the universe, or possibly of mathematics (e.g. game theoretic cooperation), which can be deduced and agreed on, even separately from purely human concerns and attributes. So we can speak of objective morals. And if one believes that humans are typical of (evolved) intelligences, and that evolution removes behavior that is se
Link to Blog Post: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice"
_____
_____
This is a LW discussion post for Yvain's blog posts at Slate Star Codex, as per tog's suggestion:
Scott/Yvain's permission to repost on LW was granted (from facebook):