>For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. When examining what is actually the case rather than only observing what humans happ

>For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. When examining what is actually the case rather than only observing what humans happen to think, observations like this aren't able to assist us in making a determination. Just as we can't reason "Humans believe and act like God exists therefore God exists" (here I imagine you concur) we likewise can't reason "Humans believe they have value therefore humans do have value". You could make the completely uncontested point "Humans believe they have value therefore humans believe they have value" but it would be an unhelpful tautology. >which necessitates that you value the ability to make decisions Like I mentioned before, we agree in our rejection of moral nihilism: any human talking about any of this first "implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement" and this serves as more indication Moral Realism is the case and that values exist objectively. >I don't see how you can argue that this can be a convincing argument to consider, even hypothetically I'm suggesting people will benefit from adopting logically consistent viewpoints. - Empiricism with Moral Nonrealism/Nihilism: logically consistent - Non-Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically consistent - Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically inconsistent, untenable