Charles Stevenson argued in his book, Ethics and Language, that arguments in ethics about right and wrong, or good and bad, were actually attempts to persuade others of a certain view of a matter, and were not, like arguments in science, aimed at truth. For there is no truth or falsity in ethics. Therefore, ethical reasoning is actually persuasive reasoning, and not cognitive reasoning, and a reason is a good reason in ethics to the extent that it is persuasive, and a bad reason in ethics is bad to the extent it fails to persuade. So that in ethics, argument has to be understood in a completely different way from argument elsewhere. And, of course, the so must be the notion of rationality in ethics.

See: Charles Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True. But, it's not only with ethics and (sometimes) language. I'd say that these statements can go for any philosophical field, besides maybe science. Everything is perspective, only because we don't, and can never know, the views of everyone on the planet. You can persuade someone into liking forms of art. You can persuade someone into religion, even. Personally, I don't look for truths. I look for compromise.

Charles Stevenson argued in his book, Ethics and Language, that arguments in ethics about right and wrong, or good and bad, were actually attempts to persuade others of a certain view of a matter, and were not, like arguments in science, aimed at truth. For there is no truth or falsity in ethics. Therefore, ethical reasoning is actually persuasive reasoning, and not cognitive reasoning, and a reason is a good reason in ethics to the extent that it is persuasive, and a bad reason in ethics is bad to the extent it fails to persuade. So that in ethics, argument has to be understood in a completely different way from argument elsewhere. And, of course, so must be the notion of rationality in ethics.

See: Charles Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This ethical relativism was the sort of thing I especially meant by "truth is a white lie." I don't see any concrete foundation for ethics either. Values clash with values. One of the reasons politics is such a mess.

I'm not attached to the term. Let's just say that I don't see any ground for an absolute ethics. It's a matter of persuasion. I'm quite aware that some folks have different of ethics than my own. I see the world sometimes thru their eyes (imaginatively), for poetic and practical reasons. What's right or wrong depends on who you ask. It's related to who you ask.

"any ethical theory should explain three things: that intelligent disagreement can occur over moral questions, that moral terms like good are "magnetic" in encouraging action, and that the scientific method is insufficient for verifying moral claims."


I agree with the above.

But does the theory that ethics is all about persuasion allow for intelligent disagreement?

Perhaps this question is just such an ethical question. It could be answered either way. Depends on what we mean by "intelligent." This is where bluff/instinct/value comes in. Is the concept of intelligence seperate from ethics? Some types of intelligence perhaps, but a person might think intelligence is an under-rated or over-rated virtue, according to their ethics.

I suppose I take a pretty holistic view of humans. What they associate with the word "intelligent" is tied in to their value system. Fred likes Jims values and calls him intelligent, which some might view as an abuse of the word. I suppose "intelligent" can function as a word of praise. I also take a holistic view on words. So many types of people out there. If we are "networks of beliefs and desires," which I think is a good phrase if not the whole truth, then it all get's tangled up. For some people, their idea of human decency is intelligence. For others, it's all about the heart. For these heart-types, intelligence might as well mean wisdom or feeling. I think persuasion swallows everything. It's just that objective science is so persuasive that there's not much disagreement. But ethics, politics, this sort of philosophy we are doing now..all of these are tangled with ethics, and self-conception/self-ideal. Or such is my current view.

I imagine that objective science is so persuasive for a pretty good reason. Don't you? I expect that this sort of philosophy that I do is not all that tangled up. After all, you seemed to think that what I wrote about the term "exist" as denoting a meta-property (what did you say?) made sense. I think a lot of philosophy can be done so that it makes sense, and give sensible answers that can be supported by reason and by argument. Sounds like a plan to me.

Oh yes, your brand of philosophy sticks near the rigor of objective science, and I respect that. It's not my favorite part of philosophy, but I respect it.. I came to philosophy from a literary background/obsession It's very much an aesthetic pursuit for me. My ethics are tangled up with it. Anxiety of influence and all that. I want to create, ultimately. Therefore the emphasis on metaphor and the creation of concept. I don't know if you've look at the thread "subversive absolute christianity" but that's the sort of thing that fascinates me. Much of what interests me could be put away in other genres, but much that influences me is called philosophy. Many Germans. And many of them are myth-makers, poets. Rigorousness is a virtue, yes, but not the only virtue.

Yes, I suppose people believe that too. But that view amounts to cutting off the limb you are sitting on. Stevenson's view depends on non-cognitivism in ethics. No truth or falsity. Are you saying there is no truth or falsity in science too?

So that in ethics, argument has to be understood in a completely different way from argument elsewhere. And, of course, so must be the notion of rationality in ethics.

Stevenson's view depends on non-cognitivism in ethics. No truth or falsity.

I thought that the point of philosophizing was to clarify and find out things. Not to entertain. How can philosophy be an aesthetic pursuit? What is it that you would be pursuing? Rigor is a virtue only because it is a necessary means in inquiry. I don't care about rigor in itself. Why should I? It is not as if I were in the pursuit of rigor, you know. If you want to create then why are you interested in philosophy? Why isn't writing short stories, or poetry occupying you?

Charles Stevenson argued in his book, Ethics and Language, that arguments in ethics about right and wrong, or good and bad, were actually attempts to persuade others of a certain view of a matter, and were not, like arguments in science, aimed at truth. For there is no truth or falsity in ethics. Therefore, ethical reasoning is actually persuasive reasoning, and not cognitive reasoning, and a reason is a good reason in ethics to the extent that it is persuasive, and a bad reason in ethics is bad to the extent it fails to persuade. So that in ethics, argument has to be understood in a completely different way from argument elsewhere. And, of course, so must be the notion of rationality in ethics.

See: Charles Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ten commandments are poetry. Plato's republic is poetry. VCR instruction manuals are poetry. Profanity is poetry. "Self is illusion" is poetry. "Philosophy is poetry" is poetry. Tautologies are poetry. Sure, this is to bend to current use of certain words, but that's how abstract concepts are made in the first place. Just as concept comes from conception, the fertilization of the egg. A dead metaphor. Dead metaphor rubbed together to make live metaphor. Taste varies. Its the risk one runs. But if a writer doesn't enjoy his/her own lines, he's in the wrong business. Poetry is child's play, sure, so what? And perhaps much of the serious business of philosophy is the child playing a game of grown-up. Soft science is generally made of poetry/trope. But to understand what I mean takes a leaning in, a sincere openness. And that statement is rich with metaphor. I can't write it off, that language is primarily made of metaphors and philosophy of language.

We've got laws and churches and traditions. It's no big deal if a foolosopher sees that ethics is made of air.