Moral realism is not the way. There is absolutely no reason to believe in universal right and wrong. Might make you feel good but that doesn’t make it true
I try to stay epistemically humble. As far as meta-ethics go I tend to lean toward proving a positive as opposed to a negative which is why I am a relativist in the face of no proof.
No, both of you are strawmanning my argument. I said "No True Scotsman isn't a valid argument" and you got "moral relativism is OK" from that.
There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".
So, presumably there is a line after all. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with other than palatable phrasing.
I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?
It's not about whether there's a line or not, it's about the phrasing setting the goalposts in such a way that it's a circular argument that can't be argued against. Nobody can say anything because your argument is "if you want to do this, you're bad, because you want to do this".
A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face.
You could say that some women do it willingly out of piety by buying into the cultural mores they grew up in. That from their perspective women who don't do so are crazy and debase themselves. Or throw the no true scotsman fallacy at them as you did. Technically, you've won the argument...
..unfortunately I can't be sure you're not accidentally straw-manning (why can't it be straw personing! As a scarecrow I am offended :P) the person you were replying to.
I say accidentally because I know you to always argue in good faith. And to be fair it is ambiguously and poorly phrased as you say. But lets extend this same good faith to the rest of their sentence:
> If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed.
> Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
I think that is the very heart of the matter.
Can't speak for the op and whether they meant to make that point but my reading of their full argument is:
"this is not only bad because bad people do it, but mostly because the bad people gas-light everybody about their culture and piety and the majority of women have to pretend to go along with it willingly".
No true scotsman obviously doesn't apply to, say, a situation like North Korea.
Anyway, I don't like the woke-y phrasings either but lets not be so open minded as to have our brains fall out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
But if you follow this reasoning farther, what about the women who, for whatever reason (brainwashing etc) do actually want their faces covered? Is it for us to say "no, you actually don't, you've been brainwashed and I know better than you what you want".
I'd rather say "forcing people to do things they want to do is bad", and let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
> let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
Sure. Of course, not possible in an absolutist monarchy such as SA and pretending otherwise in an effort to be none-judgmental is (unwittingly, accidentally, what have you) carrying water for them. Which, I don't think is your intention.
It is worth contemplating that playing on this very ambiguity and passive tendencies - in other circumstance perhaps to be commended as sage like reservation - is what keeps places like Russia, SA, NK, Iran coasting.
