What exactly is the point of moral and political philosophy?

[Belinda]

ultimately has to make appeal to "moral intuition" or mere "feelings."

Your every motivation boils down to "feelings" - preferences.

Here's a question, Allen:

Why do anything?

-

At the end, it seems to me all the discussions always hinges on whether the audience already accepts certain moral commitments or sharing the same moral sentiments, and if not, there's just what I call "fundamental misalignment of moral judgement" where two people simply have different opinions about a moral situation and the debate admits of no further arbitration.

Our preferences can change.
We can grow and come to recognize ourselves more clearly.
One's goal yesterday, need not be one's goal today.

The future always holds the potential to alter us dramatically.
Whether us to align with others, others to align with us -
or both to align upon a newly discovered path.
Sometimes even to walk away,
and potentially converge again.

These frameworks we create,
ideally produce our shared benefit.
And it is recognized that compromise & cooperation,
can produce greater outcomes -
than indiscriminately chasing any drive.

EDIT (for visibility):

The authenticity of x's argument concerning morals and politics is defined by whether or not x's actions accompanied or followed x's words.

Authentic: Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief

One's argument and one's character are not identical.
To conflate the two is obscures our capacity to assess / examine information.

If one dismisses an argument, solely based on who speaks it,
then one is actively blinding themself to potential insight or perspective.

The argument you set here is not sound.
It does not follow that an argument is flawed, because it is presented by someone of flawed character.

An argument can be valid, regardless of the one who presents the argument.

Your standard is flawed - your argument, unsound.

An AI machine like ChatGPT cannot be authentic as it is never the author of its information and opinions, it's not even the author of its temporary persona that it displays to me when appropriate to who it thinks I am. Chat GPT does however produce valid arguments even when its not asked to do so. It does so because it's programmed to do so.

True, validity matters. Authenticity matters too; ChatGPT is not my friend/is not capable of being authentic. I trust scepticism and to evaluate an argument I ask "What's in it for the presenter?" It is impossible to get rid of subjective bias. Who is presenting an argument does matter.
See Mandy Rice-Davies at the Profumo trial for a classic case.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This just in: Allen Beasley is reported to have dropped out of Uni and will take up organic gardening a la Cincinnatus and to hell with all this pseudo-philosophical b.s.

[Ben JS]

An AI machine like ChatGPT cannot be authentic as it is never the author of its information and opinions, [...] True, validity matters. Authenticity matters too

Whether the speaker is authentic is a different question than whether the speaker's argument is authentic.

Let me remind you of your claim:

The authenticity of x's argument concerning morals and politics is defined by whether or not x's actions accompanied or followed x's words.

To clarify: I agree authenticity of speaker is a relevant attribute [This wasn't your above claim]-
but not a relevant attribute in determining the authenticity of their argument.
Their argument exists beyond them - & generally would be a claim about reality.
This can be examined on it's own merit, even if it's the result of monkeys on typewriters.

--

The authenticity of x's argument concerning morals and politics is defined by whether or not x's actions accompanied or followed x's words.

Authentic: Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief

One's argument and one's character are not identical.
To conflate the two is obscures our capacity to assess / examine information.

If one dismisses an argument, solely based on who speaks it,
then one is actively blinding themself to potential insight or perspective.

The argument you set here is not sound.
It does not follow that an argument is flawed, because it is presented by someone of flawed character.

An argument can be valid, regardless of the one who presents the argument.

Your standard is flawed - your argument, unsound.