I don't think stance independent norms motivate. People motivated by their desires and values. ONLY moral antirealism makes sense of actual behavior. Realism is at best superfluous, if not outright nonsense.
You can be motivated to comply with what you believe the stance-independent norms are, sure. But I'm not denying that. I deny that the norms themselves do the motivating or have motivation built into them. I don't think norms themselves motivate. Motivation is a feature of the psychology of agents, not a property of some abstract philosophical concept.
//People can't be motivated by norms or beliefs they don't actually hold, but someone's merely holding a norm or belief doesn't make it stance dependent.//
I agree. Did you think that I thought otherwise? If so, then you misunderstood my position.
//Anti realism of a kind that rejects all.norms, makes no sense of behaviour either//
Antirealism has no problem making sense of behavior. There is absolutely no behavior that only makes sense if moral realism is true.
//. If there are no shared norms for settling a debate ,then there is no point in having one. Yet you debate.//
Antirealism does not entail that people don't share norms. It is consistent with antirealism for people to share norms and to have debates.
//And you assume shared norms, because you assume an audience who accept "don't believe things without evidence" and "don't believe contradictions", among other basic principles.//
Assuming people share the same or similar values is consistent with antirealism.
That difference is irrelevant to my point.
I don't think stance independent norms motivate. People motivated by their desires and values. ONLY moral antirealism makes sense of actual behavior. Realism is at best superfluous, if not outright nonsense.
You can be motivated to comply with what you believe the stance-independent norms are, sure. But I'm not denying that. I deny that the norms themselves do the motivating or have motivation built into them. I don't think norms themselves motivate. Motivation is a feature of the psychology of agents, not a property of some abstract philosophical concept.
//People can't be motivated by norms or beliefs they don't actually hold, but someone's merely holding a norm or belief doesn't make it stance dependent.//
I agree. Did you think that I thought otherwise? If so, then you misunderstood my position.
//Anti realism of a kind that rejects all.norms, makes no sense of behaviour either//
Antirealism has no problem making sense of behavior. There is absolutely no behavior that only makes sense if moral realism is true.
//. If there are no shared norms for settling a debate ,then there is no point in having one. Yet you debate.//
Antirealism does not entail that people don't share norms. It is consistent with antirealism for people to share norms and to have debates.
//And you assume shared norms, because you assume an audience who accept "don't believe things without evidence" and "don't believe contradictions", among other basic principles.//
Assuming people share the same or similar values is consistent with antirealism.