	“The Inarticulate Debate” is the second lecture series in Dr. Charles Taylor’s The Ethics of Authenticity. In Dr. Taylor’s first lecture, he summarizes three key maladies that have largely replaced cosmic thinking.
  Taylor begins his second lecture with an example of how individualism occurs in everyday lives. This individualism leads to a loss of meaning, according to Taylor, due to the loss of awareness of the surrounding environment that occurs when one only focuses on themselves. Due to a lack of awareness, meaning is lost as there is no reason to hold something meaningful if one is not aware of it. Doing so would be a waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere. Taylor then begins to lecture about “authenticity,” which Taylor states opposes soft relativism.
	The inarticulate debate that the title of the second lecture refers to is the debate between soft relativism, individualism, and authenticity. Because the proponents of soft relativism and individualism have the final say in what they believe is “right” and “wrong,” opposition can only offer alternative hypotheses to attempt to sway proponents into a different light. However, the final choice lies with the individual. Taylor talks about how the current American institution allows these ideas to manifest themselves through the use of individual freedoms and a lack of willingness by the government to place ideals on acceptable and unacceptable ideals. 
To solve this inarticulate debate, Taylor offers three conclusions that must occur. First, people must come to realize that authenticity is a valid ideal, even if it opposes societal norms. Second, arguments can be made in reason about ideals and conformity to ideals. Finally, the arguments must make a difference in society. The first conclusion faces resistance from the dominant society, but can be overcome with more open-minded thinking. The second conclusion should not be a problem for anyone serious in attempting to gain a greater sense of understanding for themselves and others. The third conclusion seems to be the most difficult to see fulfilled, as many people would not be comfortable with saying that certain people are “better” or “worse” than others. This debate is inarticulate because there is nothing more that either side can communicate without more open discussion, as each of the sides currently represent a rivalry that is currently in a stalemate.
