I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. That section I mentioned is very relevant to this thread, but the Theaetetus in its entirety can be a more difficult dialogue. Ideally you would want a shorter dialogue to begin. My bookmarks are currently in the Philebus and the Sophist, but those are probably not great introductory texts either.
I would just find an online reference that gives a quick summary of each and pick whatever catches your interest.
Has anyone argued that this is so? I certainly haven’t. But you seem to think I have. I suppose I might apply Hanlon’s Razor rather than ascribe malice.
Well your idea of an “ethical truth” is fairly different from a standard truth, isn’t it? Isn’t that what you have been saying? I think you may as well argue that argumentum ad populum is not fallacious when it comes to “ethical truths” given their non-standard nature.
In any case, I’m starting to think you don’t quite know what you think about the relation of your conclusion to the claim, “I hope most people would agree that it is wrong to kick puppies.” You’ve basically set yourself a disjunctive syllogism, “Moral truth must come from somewhere, and it doesn’t come from any objective place, therefore it must derive from subjects. If it does derive from subjects, then the more the merrier!”
Ok, I’ve taken you off “ignore”.
Make it worth my while. Show me that you have read my posts, understood them and have a valid response.
But I’ve not taken you off “ignore.” This is the only thread where I am reading your posts. But perhaps you can demonstrate that it is “worth my while.” This is as good a place to start as any.
That’s a summary, Leon, not an argument.
I have read that, but I reread it at your request. It doesn’t speak to the questions I posed, except for perhaps a single sentence:
Are you saying that we deliberate and reach agreement by persuading others with reasons, facts about suffering, flourishing, and harm?
That’s a summary, Leon, not an argument.
try I am a Moral Nihilist - #269 by Banno
or I am a Moral Nihilist - #540 by Banno
No.
I didn’t think so. So do you have answers to my questions? They are similar to the questions that @Tom_Storm put to you, namely the questions about persuading and convincing others through ethical deliberation.
… come on.
Address what I wrote. not what you want me to have written.
You’re not addressing me at all. You’re just pointing me to old posts that I’ve already read, and when I ask you to confirm whether they bear on the questions I’ve asked you respond, “No.”
I presented an extended argument. You criticised something else. Now you refuse to address what I have written.
There’s the argument, point out the problem.
I am pointing you to my most recent criticism, so I am not “criticizing something else.” I am asking how ethical deliberation comes into your view. If you have a post where you address that question then you can link it, but the posts you’ve linked don’t seem to address the question.
…So you want me to argue the argumentum ad populum point instead of the ethical deliberation point?
Here is your answer, Leon:
To be sure, this is a summary, and not an argument, so yes, 3 does not follow from 1 and 2, and isn’t intended to.
The quotes given in the last few posts do present arguments, so you should have no problem showing were they go astray.
Would you maintain that, on your view, there is a need to engage in ethical deliberation? Because that’s what you’ve said in that post and that’s what I asked about.
It’s up to you. I hope it clear that the argument I presented does not move from popularity to truth, but points out that given agreement on our preferences we can move on to agree on what to do about them; and here, the reasons for our preferences are not involved.
It’s not hard.
As just explained, if we agree on what we want, we do not need to argue about why we want it.
So if that is what you mean by “ethical deliberation”, the answer is “no”.
Okay, so just to be clear, let me quote the original post I asked about:
Here you say, among other things:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that you’ve changed your mind on (2). I asked whether you would maintain that there is a need to engage in ethical deliberation and you answered, “no”.
Are you also changing your mind on (1)? Or do you still think that we can reach agreement and that you’ve shown such a thing?
(Note that the question here is whether “reach” implies potential movement from disagreement to agreement. Usually to say, “We can reach agreement,” means that we can come to agree even if we don’t currently agree.)
We do not need to engage in deliberation so as to agree as to why something is preferable.
We might need to engage in deliberation in order to agree that something is preferable.
We can orient our debilitations towards what to do, and not waste time on the whys and wherefores. Ethics involves what we do.