WO: Intuitions regarding the moral probity of actions or maxims are being privileged without justification. Many men in Iran, for example, aver that rape within marriage is not possible [and marriage of 45 year old men to 12 year old girls is fine -EY] and any metaethical theory that authorizes otherwise is consequently defective. How is that view any different from RP's view? If you go with intuitions, independent of a metaethic or moral epistemology, how do you go about showing that your intuitions are any better (epistemically) than mine?
Doesn't this example show the necessity of "standing with one's culture"? Bernard-Henri Levy makes the point that Westerners have allowed Multiculturalism to trump Enlightenment Liberal Core Values. For example, Universal Equality is a cornerstone of Enlightenment values, yet multiculturalism would require us to turn a blind eye to the treatment of women in Islamic nations.
How does that fit with the stated need for "undominated dialogue"?
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
