Ultimately the Argumentation Ethics proponent will admit that it only purports to show that “there can be no other objective ethics than the NAP,” which of course devolves into a non-statement if there are no objective ethics.
It’s an argument intended for people who already believe in objective ethics. Since “objective ethics” is an incoherent notion (because “objective value” is), Argumentation Ethics would at best be a tool for convincing people who already buy into the objective ethics nonsense. Unfortunately, it fails even at that, due to equivocation.
Hence Argumentation Ethics is fatally flawed twice over.
reading you’r post- very unimpressive, complete strawman.
Reminds me of this.