Some counterarguments against pessimism’s view on moral testimony

Some counterarguments against pessimism’s view on moral testimony
On page seven of What is Wrong With Moral Testimony? Robert Hopkins presents the following argument, that one cannot adopt moral worldviews simply on the testimony of another. He claims that “The pessimist’s starting point is the intuition that we cannot legitimately adopt our moral views on the word of another… When others offer one their moral views, one should not allow oneself to be influenced by the mere fact that they make certain claims. Listen to their arguments, think the matter through for oneself, but do not be swayed by authority. The intuition is not that we should eschew (avoid) taking another’s word on moral matters because the discourse is not genuinely epistemic (how we acquire knowledge); it is that we should eschew (avoid) it, whatever the nature of that discourse—epistemic (knowledge) or ersatz (not knowledge/inferior knowledge)—turns out to be. (Hopkins page 7)”
I think Robert Hopkins has this argument form:
Premise 1: If someone with authority asks you to believe in a moral view, then you should either adopt or reject their moral view.
Premise 2: One cannot adopt a moral view on the account of someone being able to make certain claims, regardless of the nature of the discourse.
Conclusion: So, one should reject any moral views said by someone with authority, regardless of the nature of that discourse. (1,2 HS)
Although Hopkins’ argument of not accepting moral views based on the testimony of another seems to be logical and reasonable, Hopkin’s argument fails to account for certain scenarios in which taking the moral view of another is considered acceptable and correct in society. With this in mind, I challenge premise two, which reads that, “One cannot adopt a moral view on the account of someone being able to make certain claims, regardless of the nature of the discourse,” in view that around the world it is generally agreed upon that children should listen to their parent’s advice on life. This example directly interferes with Hopkins’ argument, since a person of authority is asking a child, teenage, or young adult to adopt a moral view of some kind. Despite seeking wisdom from authoritative sources, such as older generations, being wrong for Hopkins, society would disagree with Hopkins and agree that younger generations should at least consider the older generations’ moral views, on the basis that they have lived longer and can provide one with sound advice.
Additionally, society relies on moral testimony because it prompts both parties to consider each other’s point of views and reach a conclusion for themselves. In view of the need for all humans to at least consider each other’s points of view, I disagree with premise one, on the basis that adopting or rejecting a moral view are not the only two options for responding to someone else’s moral testimony. In my opinion, one can still consider yet not adopt another person’s argument. However, according to Hopkins, one should not even consider, but rather avoid another person’s arguments. In view of Hopkins’ view and applying it to real life, if one were to consider applying this idea of premise one, which carries over to premise two and asks the reader to not even consider but rather avoid and reject another person’s moral view, one of the first things one would have to give up would be civic discourse. In civic discourse there are two parties present, engaging, challenging, and attempting to persuade each other to adopt the other’s moral view on a topic. Thus, if Hopkins’ views were incorporated, one would see no use in civic discourse because one’s mind would be presupposed to disregard and avoid the other person’s viewpoint, on the basis that moral testimony is not knowledge. In view of the narrowmindedness a pessimistic view would entail on all communication in general, I find the author’s argument against moral testimony to be faulty and requiring more refinement.
In view of Hopkin’s views on moral testimony and my counterarguments for his article, I hope that the points I have presented illustrate the fault that arises from completely adopting Hopkin’s pessimistic view on moral testimony. Even though I do agree with him that in not all cases one should automatically adopt another person’s moral view, such as when a Neo-Nazis asks you to adopt a commonly held morally wrong point of view, I think that in other cases, such as with children, teenagers, or young adults, they should adopt their parental authority’s moral point of view.

What are your thoughts on morality?