It supposed to emphasise that in matters of ethics, when we have strong arguments for a particular position their isn't a need to invite weak arguments for posi

It supposed to emphasise that in matters of ethics, when we have strong arguments for a particular position their isn't a need to invite weak arguments for position on the basis of promoting 'thought diversity'. For instance on an Animal and Food ethics board it doesn't make sense to accomodate someone who denies the moral relevance of animals, because that is an indefensible view in modern philosophy. Their increasing the "diversity" of the viewpoints on the board would be of negative value, not positive value. It is the same sort of situation here.