So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.Examples:
The religious group that acts for all the world like God is a supernatural creator who builds universes, creates people out of other people’s ribs, parts seas, and heals the sick when asked very nicely (bailey). Then when atheists come around and say maybe there’s no God, the religious group objects “But God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe! You’re not denying that there’s beauty and order in the Universe, are you?” (motte). Then when the atheists go away they get back to making people out of other people’s ribs and stuff.Another,
The feminists who constantly argue about whether you can be a real feminist or not without believing in X, Y and Z and wanting to empower women in some very specific way, and who demand everybody support controversial policies like affirmative action or affirmative consent laws (bailey). Then when someone says they don’t really like feminism very much, they object “But feminism is just the belief that women are people!” (motte) Then once the person hastily retreats and promises he definitely didn’t mean women aren’t people, the feminists get back to demanding everyone support affirmative action because feminism, or arguing about whether you can be a feminist and wear lipstick.The example above reminds me of when a feminist approached me in college. She asked me if I believed that women have the same rights as men. When I said sure she determined that I was a feminist too!
I remember walking away thinking that if I believed men and women had the same right to hire and fire whomever they want, according to her that's feminism. But of course it's not. It's not about whether men and women have the same rights. We have to get into the nitty gritty of what those rights are in order to determine who is feminist.
Slatestar has several other examples in his post, but I want to offer one.
Environmentalists often speak about, "nature's intention," or "hurting the environment," or "respecting the earth" or the "balance of nature," or the "circle of life." When you point out that nature is neither a person nor holy, they start talking about... animals. You see, what they were really talking about was the animals that get hurt or displaced during mining, logging, etc. Or they talk about global warming. What they were really talking about is all the harm we cause by creating carbon emissions.
Then when you relax they go back to talking about the environment like it's a person or even a God; saying things that don't fit into the care for animals or global warming mold.
David Friedman has called nature worship the world's leading religion. I'm compelled to agree.
