Explanation vs. Principle

== Purpose ==
In moral conversations, a common interaction will begin with someone stating a value or a principle. Essentially, it is some statement that this person believes motivates them on a moral level. An example may be "Human equality" or "Sentience rights."
One of the popular responses in moral dialogue to someone stating a value is to ask "Why do you value X?"
This article is to argue that there are two categories of answers to this question: Explanations and Values. I also want to argue that much confusion is had within moral dialogue by not recognizing these distinctions and so if you want to have a productive and understanding moral dialogue, it would be best to keep these distinctions in mind.
== Definitions ==
Explanation: An explanation are informative statements about how a given value comes to or does exist. It could be the series of events that led to the formation of that value, an ontological description of what that value consists of or other background facts (Such as historical facts).
Principle: A principle/underpinning value is another declarative statement of a value that is true of the original value being stated, thus contributing to the original value's overall worth.
== Examples of Explanations ==
Let's say someone gives the statement: "Killing is wrong." Then that person is asked "Why do you think killing is wrong?"
An example of an explanation that is not a principle may be something to the effect of "Values are made of chemicals and circuitry in my brain. There exists a set of chemicals/circuitry in my brain that cause 'killing is wrong' to be thought/felt. That is why I think killing is wrong."
The above example does give information as to how or why the value "killing is wrong" exists. However, it is not counted as a principle if the person stating it believes this fact does not contribute to the value "killing is wrong." If, for instance, the chemicals and brain circuitry were replaced by silicon chips that performed the same function, the value of "killing is wrong" does not go up or down. It is an explanation because it has nothing to do with how the person calculates the value of any statement but does give information as to the origin or existence of said value.
== Examples of Principles ==
Taking the same example, we have someone say "Killing is wrong." Then that person is asked "Why do you think killing is wrong?"
An example of a principle may be "Because killing violates the interest of a being's desire to live. Violating a being's interests is wrong." Here, we see this statement adding to the value of the original statement. The person stating that "violating interests is wrong" is declaring another value. They also believe that "violating interests" is something true (or, at least, most of the time) of killing someone. This becomes an underpinning value that helps bolster the original value of the claim "Killing is wrong." Unlike explanations, a principle adds value to the original statement.
== Confusion in Moral Dialogue ==
Oftentimes an answer to "Why do you value X?" can be understood as a principle or an explanation by context, but certain answers are more confusing whether they are a principle or explanation.
Take for example the following exchange: 
Person A: "You shouldn't hit women, even if they hit you first." 
Person B: "Why do you say that?"
Person A: "That's how I was raised."
Now, this highlighted section is far less clear as to whether it constitutes an explanation or a principle. Is this just background information that tells us how it is Person A obtained that value? Or, is this information that, because Person A values it and believes it is true, improves the value of the first statement? If it's a principle, we might expect that Person A believes that people should value whatever they were raised to value. If that's the case, one might challenge such an idea with counter-examples. (Ex: What if someone was raised to believe rape was okay?) However, if it serves just as an explanation, offering counter-examples is irrelevant. Person A may not care that they were raised that way, nor care how anyone else is raised; it just so happens it offers information on how the value was formed.
My suggestion to maneuver around this confusion is to ask clarifying questions whenever you are presented with an answer that may not be clear. Such an example would be:
"Do you mean to say that we should find whatever we are raised with to be wrong?"
If yes, then feel free to engage in counter-examples.
If no, ask "Is there any principled reason you have to believe 'Value X'"?
Try not to assume, and be charitable. It is a giant waste of time to continuously try and prove an explanation false by assuming it's a principle.