Why I'm a moral anti-realist but may be unable to convince you

Figure from Chapter 4 of Understanding Knowledge by Michael Huemer On a high level there aren’t that many ways knowledge can be justified (or not). This figure from the book “Understanding Knowledge” by Michael Huemer illustrates the options you have: Infinitism: you require that everything be justified with reasons, so you require reasons for your reasons for your reasons, forever—infinite regress. “Infinitism holds that the key to justified belief is having an infinite, non-repeating chain of reasons standing behind each justified belief.” Coherentism: At some point a reason that required a justification itself becomes a justification for something else. Quoting from the book: “Belief systems are justified by internal coherence. In other words, if you have a lot of beliefs that fit together really well, then that belief system is probably by and large correct.” Foundationalism: At least some propositions are known without reasons. Skepticism: You decide it’s impossible to know anything at all. Foundationalism is generally the most popular view (~60% of philosophers according to the 2020 PhilPapers survey ). Coherentism is second at around 20%. From Huemer again: Foundationalists believe two things: Some beliefs are justified in a way that does not depend on reasons, i.e., does not depend on their being supported by other beliefs. These are known as foundational beliefs, and their justification is known as foundational justification. (Also, propositions that we have foundat…