I recently read that the majority of philosophers are moral realists. I either do not understand moral realism or, if I do understand it, I don't buy it. Below I describe how I view the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong.' Is my understanding incompatible with moral realism? And how would you critique my understanding? Also if you want to give a version of moral realism that is easy to understand that would be greatly appreciated.
Let’s say that I find test taking difficult. I declare: test taking is difficult. This statement is relational in nature. I am saying that because of various elements of my personal makeup the action of taking a test is difficult for me. It would be incorrect of me to say that test taking was objectively difficult. Some, as a result of various differing elements of their personal makeup, may find test taking easy. It is hypothetically possible to enumerate all of the events in my life as a child and the specific neuroanatomical structures that cause test taking to be difficult for me. If those qualities and structures were altered test taking could become easy.
Descriptors like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can be thought of in the same way. They describe an action’s relation to a person. If I say, “punching a child in the face is wrong,” the same analysis can be done to find the experiences and structural aspects of my brain that lead to this statement. If those experiences and structures were changed I could say, “Punching a child in the face is right.” Moral descriptors simply show my personal feelings about an action because of my specific history.