FWIW, I don’t actually want to let everyone live the way they want to. Ideally, I would far prefer that everyone live the way that’s best for everyone.
Of course, I don’t know that there is any such way-to-live, and I certainly don’t know what it is, or how to cause everyone to live that way.
I might end up endorsing letting everyone live the way they want to, if I were convinced that that was the best achievable approximation of everyone living the way that’s best for everyone. (IRL I’m not convinced of that.) But it would be an approximation of what I want, not what I want.
So what use is there in debating morality, if we have so divergent moral intuitions?
It’s worth drawing a distinction here between debating morality and discussing it.
Roughly, I would say that the goal of debate is to net-increase among listeners their support for the position I champion, and the goal of discussion is to net-increase among listeners their understanding of the positions being discussed. In both cases, I might or might not hold any particular position, and participants in the discussion/debate are also listeners.
So. The value to me of debating moral positions is to convince listeners to align themselves with the moral positions I choose to champion. The value of debating other positions in moral terms is to convince listeners to align themselves with the other positions I choose to champion. The value to me of discussing moral positions is to learn more and to help others learn more about the various moral positions that exist.
Of course, many people respond negatively when they infer that someone is trying to get them to change their positions, and so it’s often valuable when debating a topic to pretend to be discussing it instead. And, of course, if I believe that to understand my position is necessarily to support it, then I won’t be able to tell the difference between debating and discussing that position.
So all of those things are sometimes called “debating morality”, sometimes accurately. And debating morality is sometimes called other things.
Of course, many people respond negatively when they infer that someone is trying to get them to change their positions, and so it’s often valuable when debating a topic to pretend to be discussing it instead.
That can also backfire with charges of “disingenuous”.
FWIW, I don’t actually want to let everyone live the way they want to.
Ideally, I would far prefer that everyone live the way that’s best for everyone.
Of course, I don’t know that there is any such way-to-live, and I certainly don’t know what it is, or how to cause everyone to live that way.
I might end up endorsing letting everyone live the way they want to, if I were convinced that that was the best achievable approximation of everyone living the way that’s best for everyone. (IRL I’m not convinced of that.) But it would be an approximation of what I want, not what I want.
It’s worth drawing a distinction here between debating morality and discussing it.
Roughly, I would say that the goal of debate is to net-increase among listeners their support for the position I champion, and the goal of discussion is to net-increase among listeners their understanding of the positions being discussed. In both cases, I might or might not hold any particular position, and participants in the discussion/debate are also listeners.
So. The value to me of debating moral positions is to convince listeners to align themselves with the moral positions I choose to champion. The value of debating other positions in moral terms is to convince listeners to align themselves with the other positions I choose to champion. The value to me of discussing moral positions is to learn more and to help others learn more about the various moral positions that exist.
Of course, many people respond negatively when they infer that someone is trying to get them to change their positions, and so it’s often valuable when debating a topic to pretend to be discussing it instead. And, of course, if I believe that to understand my position is necessarily to support it, then I won’t be able to tell the difference between debating and discussing that position.
So all of those things are sometimes called “debating morality”, sometimes accurately. And debating morality is sometimes called other things.
That can also backfire with charges of “disingenuous”.
Well, yes. I mean, it is disingenuous.
If I’m going to successfully pretend to be doing something I’m not, it helps to not get caught out.