It's built into our everyday physical reality, or it is bullshit.
Moral realism has no epistemic superiority. It's just as "bullshit" as everything else; the rotten core of bullshit is just hidden under a bunch of layers of deduction.
I prefer to air the dirty laundry; realists are uncomfortable by stained underwear and would prefer to play logical games on top of an edifice without thinking too much about the sand underneath their feet.
But at the core all systems of morality have the same problem. Realism is no escape. In fact, IMO, it's worse than a mistake because it provides the illusion of solving an insurmountable problems.
I guess it comes down to this: "I choose to believe in God and I know that belief is arbitrary" is to me by far the most compelling apology. Things like Goedel's proof just make me yawn and squint.
Isn't this exactly my point?
> Would you care to pose the actual hard problem, then?
Where the hell does your moral truth come from?
The way I see it, we actually operate in exactly the same way. The only difference is that I don't pretend that arbitrary things aren't arbitrary.
> I'm a realist about value and interests at the organismic level, and merely observe that moral norms and imperatives at the social level often have deep anthropological reasons that ground out in the genuine interests of the individuals involved.
This kind of inexact hand waving is exactly what I meant when I said "pseudo-scientific BS".