The philosophical realization is that our lives involve what interests us, what matters to us, what our justifications look like, what obligations we have, how we judge, are accused, make excuses, etc. What careens us from "objective" to "subjective" is the fear of the fact that there is nothing stopping us from disagreeing about moral issues. Wittgenstein threads the needle with a few things. One being the solidity of us all being human, our culture, our language, etc., which people could intellectually pick apart if it were a moral theory, but Witt shows that every little thing (say, that I listed) has its own criteria, own ways of being rational; and, because of that variety and specificity, if and when we disagree, there is some mutual history to extend from (not manifest from thin air) and we have ways of working out our differences (which may be personal, but rarely secret--apart from anyone). Finally, that when we express ourselves, or judge the other, we are doing it, each separately, we are responsible, we define ourselves in that act, we are answerable, we stand for something. So we may end up disagreeing, but we at least have the ability to develop what our rationale are and what our position will mean for who we will be in saying it, and thus we have the possibility to respect the other for taking their position even though we disagree.

Wittgenstein would've said, "It's not that there is no such thing as value, it's just that "value" means different things to different people"

Axiology is about the referent of "value" and Wittgensteinianism is about the word "value". :joke:

:smirk: