Matthias Wasser wrote: But to engage in the sorts of social behaviors most would readily recognize as moral approval and disapproval - "I donated to charity! I'm such a good person!" "You cheated on Amy? How could you...?" - it hardly seems neccessary to be a Moralist, or to use a perhaps less confusing term, moral realist.
I'll try to respond to other aspects of your post later, but for now I just want to focus the whole discussion a bit. We are talking about politics heer, not Amy or charitable donations. (Notice incidentally how attempts to write moral discourse turns almost unavoidably from the world of social relations to judgments of particular individuals.) And within the realm of politics the context is of discussion among committed left radicals, not about the problems of agitation. I or anyone would write ro speak differently in the realm of political agiation (a speech at a rally, a conversation with an individual while circulating a petition, a leaflet). Hence bringing in what "most people" would think or what "most people" would say in private conversation simply aborts the conversation we are trying to have. (And see Ian's post.)
Carrol