This is Close Reeds, a philosophy podcast with Mark and Wes.

I'm Wes Allwin, and I'm Mark Lintonmeyer.

Hey, I thought I should put an announcement at the beginning of this, so you'll not be confused

when we announced that this is part eight of a treatment on Close Reeds of a particular essay.

Were I in your shoes, I might say, but I haven't listened to parts one through seven,

or I only listened to part one and maybe part four, the ones that appeared on the public feed.

I'm not going to know what's going on here, but I'm posting this on the public feed because

we summarize everything.

I think this actually really works a standalone

presentation, not only what Peter Railton has to say in this particular article, but as a

cap off of our whole ethics unit, where we're really bringing our knowledge of Hume, of Kant,

of Korsgaard to bear here and trying to seriously understand what a naturalistic ethics, a scientifically respectable

ethics, could amount to. So while perhaps this will inspire you to go subscribe to Close

Reads, or better yet, to sign up through patreon.com slash close reads philosophy, which will get

you all the preceding seven parts to this treatment.

Even if you don't want to do that, you're still going to understand what's going on here

and hopefully get something pretty important out of it as these things go.

Please enjoy the episode.

Let us conclude our treatment of Peter Railton's moral realism.

This will be our eighth part.

That's the most we've done in anything.

And I think you are happy being, just having seven.

...