Yeah that’s not what I was thinking about.
The way moral reasoning works is this: You have something you want, be it is your material interest or it is due to your belief or feelings. If this is to become a norm or law or widely adopted in some way, you’re not supposed to argue that way though. You have to do a whole derivation down from Universal Values™, meaning you’re now not arguing from your own POV, but from some common good, and, in practice, especially the interest of the ruling order that you want to adopt your position. This means you’re already inclined to compromise your position before you’ve even voiced it.
This is why ruling institutions encourage moral reasoning, they teach it in school, on TV etc. It makes you argue from their POV–that of the nation, the state, the existing order–instead of your own.
It also means that your moral argument is sophistry–motivated reasoning–if you have constructed it for a position you hold for a completely different reason, which is not conducive to clear thinking.
Oh come on, I can recognize my common interest with other humans without mediating this through overly abstracted “values” and then arguing from that. Plus, you know, little kids and even many animals show empathy and they’re not doing any moral reasoning or have any concept of a moral value. It seems to me that, more often than not, moral reasoning is employed to rationalize away empathy.
It would also be nice if you could not imply that I’m a threat to humanity. My comment about shooting philosophers was clearly a joke as should be obvious from the rest of the comment, whereas yours strikes me as deadly serious.
Also you didn’t actually argue my points about how this benefits existing authorities, nor about how this incentivizes motivated reasoning.