What does the unprovability of moral statements mean?
Im not studying philosophy seriously, nor do I pretend getting it. I just dabble here and there.
I've just recently came to the conclusion, on my own, that moral statements are unprovable. After some google searches I've obviously found that whatever it is I have remarked has already been remarked by some actual thinker way before.
What I was thinking of is kind of, but not exactly, the Münchhausen trilemma.
But my interest wasn't about our inability to prove moral statements, or that we can't go from descriptive to normative statements (is-ought distinction). Here is what my actual interest was about:
My thinking actually started when observing how, young people from my entourage and that I know (arab muslims, as I am one) are liking and reposting stuff about how Islam is oppressive, misogynistic, and all kinds of imaginable criticisms.
The Islam which we know, the actual lived Islam where I live, is completely unrelated to what it is I've seen them post about though. You'd be surprised how rare it is to see a Hijabi where I live, despite that when asking, most certainly 99% of people will say they're muslim. Lots drink, fornicate and so on, which are forbidden for muslims in case you're unaware, and there is little to any social objection to it, except from a drowning minority, usually loud on social media.
That's when I asked, if they see this Islam in real life, which is more identity-based, more related to spiritualism, sufi music and celebrations, why do they bother criticizing a non-existing Islam, one that doesn't concern them, as it is not their Islam, and claim that it is oppressive? Then, the question moved on from being about 'why bother criticize that specific Islam, the social media Islam, or the Islam in the Islamic books, when it's not the actually existing and practiced diluted and globalized Islam'- to how did they know if a thing is oppressive, and why that would be bad?
Beyond thought experiments, I asked a girl I knew why she would repost things about how Islam tries to 'oppress women'. She said because it mandates things she does not ask for herself. I ask her, why would that be bad? At this point, she stops taking me seriously, and drops a final "because it violates my right to choose, that's it, stop with your stupid questions."
That's kind of the dogmatic terminaison for the Münchhausen trilemma, that she has a dogmatic liberal belief as religion, and that's it.
But if so, in some way, I find that all moral statements stand on equal footing here. If you're going to anchor your moral system in a non justifiable, or unprovable claim, then everyone else who does is as justified in their moral systems. Could there be two unprovable, unjustifiable claims where one is to be taken over the other?
Am I wrong to think, these young people, and my friend, ultimately pick the white man's axiom over the brown man's axiom, for perceived aesthetic purposes? For aligning with 'western/rational/advanced' beliefs and disassociating with the orient, especially because they aren't justified in anchoring their beliefs in experience, as the Islam they criticize has been overridden by the hyperreal?