I do not “accept” nor “reject” all theories labeled under the terms “moral realism” and “moral objectivism”—same thing with “moral non-cognitivism” and “moral subjectivism.” If someone labels their philosophy as “moral realism” or “moral objectivism” but I agree with him, then fine, I agree with his philosophy. I only reject the usage of the labels “moral realism” and “moral objectivism” because they have multiple interpretations and no consensus on an unambiguous definition. Therefore, I disagree with your rejection of “moral realism” and “moral objectivism.”
This seems like the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) argument against “altruism,” which they define as the forced obligation to help others. Objectivists do not oppose voluntary altruism in the sense of donating to charity.
We should be “passionate” in the sense of voluntary altruism.
You mean that women should reject their femininity, weakness, sensitivity, passiveness, submissiveness, and cowardice?
Perhaps you have defined “conventional morality” as statist morality or “Christian morality” which forces humans to have paternalistic obligations.
Stirner rejected Christianity because he thought that “god is evil”; not because “god does not exist.” You have believed otherwise, as ascribed in the second sentence.
I don’t know about multiordinal, but biordinal. It depends on if we are talking about a optimization problem or a logic problem. The words “objective” and “fact” in the realm of logic problems is not multiordinal as you stated.
Nothing personal, AM, but your reasoning is dead wrong and off the mark. First, the laws of logic aren’t mere heuristics, they are fundamental attributes of human thinking itself (Maybe due to our evolution, but I’m not a neurologist, so I won’t speculate beyond that point.) as to not have these laws, a human mind couldn’t identify itself or that which it is not part of itself (existence). Second, just because they don’t pre-exist the human condition as some sort of physical law doesn’t mean that they are non-existent for if your reasoning was true then sound does not exist as it is merely the vibration of molecules and atoms (or in simpler terms: because the structure does not pre-exist the components, that does not mean the structure is any less real for it.).