On Ultimate Human Value and all that, which is kind of a big deal, but again, super hard and I’m constantly terrified of writing to advocate ethical positions because I assume others with better rhetoric and academic chops in the area would just blow anything I write to shreds and nothing would be accomplished
There may be a middle ground thing, where instead of aiming to advocate, you aim to deconfuse, or re-orient. . . I’ve seen you remark that posts you disagreed with seem to be “asking the wrong questions”, and it seems worth talking about What Other Questions One Might Ask. (One frame of this is for you to say ‘these are the right questions’, and a yet-more-meta-level frame would be ‘how would we be able to tell whether these were the right questions or not?’. I guess see also meta-ethics)
There may be a middle ground thing, where instead of aiming to advocate, you aim to deconfuse, or re-orient. . . I’ve seen you remark that posts you disagreed with seem to be “asking the wrong questions”, and it seems worth talking about What Other Questions One Might Ask. (One frame of this is for you to say ‘these are the right questions’, and a yet-more-meta-level frame would be ‘how would we be able to tell whether these were the right questions or not?’. I guess see also meta-ethics)