johnydon22:
Oh true. Human condemnation of killing is based on an intersubjective belief that 'human life is sacred' therefore taking it is a violation of that sacredness.

No its is not based on the believe that human live is sacred... It is because the effect is not going well with us. Killing causes sadness, loss of loved ones, creates a vacuum, pain and burden. As a result humans agree its bad.. Yes some people must be killed because its a necessity.
If it was because human life is sacred then no one will ever be killed no matter what they did.

Morality is an imagined order. Other imagined orders are; money, government, country, corporations etc. (We imagine it, we believe it)

Let me demonstrate this better with another example of imagined order.

Take for instance; Nigeria used to use the Nigerian pounds and shillings.

today, we no longer, we use naira now.

Was the Nigerian pounds and shilling money then? - Yes
Is the Nigerian pounds and shilling money today? - No

Imagined orders thrive on the prevailing belief of that given locality. I think this simplifies it for everyone right?

I don't know if I get u right but this sounds like u are making my point for me.

rekinomtla:


No, I would not do that. But I also would not criticise anyone on moral grounds if I was a moral relativist.

Well you can right. But seriously pedophilia is grossly wrong. No arguments there.

frank317:

No its is not based on the believe that human live is sacred... It is because the effect is not going well with us. Killing causes sadness, loss of loved ones, creates a vacuum, pain and burden. As a result humans agree its bad.. Yes some people must be killed because its a necessity.
If it was because human life is sacred then no one will ever be killed no matter what they did.



I don't know if I get u right but this sounds like u are making my point for me.

That has always been my point here

UyiIredia:


Well you can right. But seriously pedophilia is grossly wrong. No arguments there.

You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

johnydon22:
Again, you are assuming consequences have an inherent moral nature which is another way of saying morality is objective.

No, it isn't. it is just very generally accepted for members of a society to try to preserve it.

johnydon22:

No, they are not necessarily the same thing.

E:G - The holocaust was legal in Germany
Slavery was once legal

Were these actions moral even though they were legal?

They were moral to the Nazis and the Germans who felt that the Jews were the cause of all their problems.

johnydon22:

Quality of moral positions remains a subjective conclusion.

The point remains; Is morality an inherent quality (objective) which you seem to be leaning towards now to the detriment of your initial position that it is subjective (relative)

Simply means it is arbitrary and doesn't follow for everyone else.

Stop trying to railroad this argument into two options. Morality is, as you put "intersubjective". So is empiricism, because it relies on the subjective judgement of the observer. For morality to be objective, it would be have to be unchanging through time, which is observably untrue. Judging by what we know today regarding paedophilia, I can say that it is a negative action. Mohammed and co probably didn't have the APA performing such studies and collecting such data, so they came to different conclusions, which is normal for a man living in his time but unacceptable for a character we're supposed to model our behaviour after.

johnydon22:
You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

How can a deist believe in moral objectivity when he doesn't believe that God interferes with the affairs of humans?

johnydon22:
You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

TBH his argument make sense. And BTW I am something between moral relative and absolutist. I feel you can still argue against pedophilia under a case where moral relativism doesn't fully apply and there's some moral absolute.

Do we seriously have to judge pedophilia like eating a cake? I think the moral sphere isn't so divided against the two sides as it seems.

CoolUsername:


No I was actually getting to that.
From another post:

The above shows why a minimum age of consent should be instituted.

Also, about the part with menstruation, couldn't that just be internal bleeding?

"...The most obvious effect is psychological harm which includes, but is not limited to, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, behavioral problems, including sexualized behavior, poor self-esteem, academic problems and suicide"
How exactly does it cause all these ill effects? Where this study to be conducted at that place and time,would we have arrived at these same results
If it does not create negative effects,does it still remain bad?
moreover,the supposed victim(Aisha) was the antithesis of all of these.
The mind of a ten year old then isn't same with those of same age now; our acquired inputs and experiences determine how we would react to different situations.
Even within our present times,we hear of non-adults commiting suicide overseas over reasons that would be laughable to us here and this our vastly different reaction is due to the relatively slight variation in our environmental upbringing.

CoolUsername:





With all due respect, this where my empiricism trips your sophistry. With hard facts and evidence of the negative consequences of an action, my "opinion" on paedophilia is only as much of an opinion as any scientific theory.

Intresting arguments but now you are appealing to science for moral guidance?

You do realise that in universities that there is a reason science students study philosophy ?

Science in its raw form does not posit any moral framework. Science is just science, you then interprete scientific findings through a moral framework which outside the realms of science . Hence why philosophy is part of most science degrees

johnydon22:
Oh true. Human condemnation of killing is based on an intersubjective belief that 'human life is sacred' therefore taking it is a violation of that sacredness.

Morality is an imagined order. Other imagined orders are; money, government, country, corporations etc. (We imagine it, we believe it)

Let me demonstrate this better with another example of imagined order.

Take for instance; Nigeria used to use the Nigerian pounds and shillings.

today, we no longer, we use naira now.

Was the Nigerian pounds and shilling money then? - Yes
Is the Nigerian pounds and shilling money today? - No

Imagined orders thrive on the prevailing belief of that given locality. I think this simplifies it for everyone right?

What is morality if not an imagined order? That's the question to me.

UyiIredia:


TBH his argument make sense. And BTW I am something between moral relative and absolutist. I feel you can still argue against pedophilia under a case where moral relativism doesn't fully apply and there's some moral absolute.

Do we seriously have to judge pedophilia like eating a cake? I think the moral sphere isn't so divided against the two sides as it seems.

I don't think absolutism has an inbetween. Something is either absolute or not.

UyiIredia:


TBH his argument make sense. And BTW I am something between moral relative and absolutist. I feel you can still argue against pedophilia under a case where moral relativism doesn't fully apply and there's some moral absolute.

Do we seriously have to judge pedophilia like eating a cake? I think the moral sphere isn't so divided against the two sides as it seems.

Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

CoolUsername:


How can a deist believe in moral objectivity when he doesn't believe that God interferes with the affairs of humans?

Because morality can be an inherent quality of the universe as much as the laws of physics for a deist - God doesn't need to incessantly interfer.

johnydon22:


I don't think absolutism has an inbetween. Something is either absolute or not.

100%

johnydon22:


I don't think absolutism has an inbetween. Something is either absolute or not.

More like some things are absolute or not and some things are relative.

GeneralShepherd:


Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

The thing I am realizing is that when it come to context that is not the case. Morality could be absolute or relative when it comes to context.

CoolUsername:


No, it isn't. it is just very generally accepted for members of a society to try to preserve it.

and if they generally accept the opposite?

They were moral to the Nazis and the Germans who felt that the Jews were the cause of all their problems.

Is it moral?

You are a relativist innit?

Stop trying to railroad this argument into two options. Morality is, as you put "intersubjective". So is empiricism, because it relies on the subjective judgement of the observer. For morality to be objective, it would be have to be unchanging through time, which is observably untrue. Judging by what we know today regarding paedophilia, I can say that it is a negative action. Mohammed and co probably didn't have the APA performing such studies and collecting such data, so they came to different conclusions, which is normal for a man living in his time but unacceptable for a character we're supposed to model our behaviour after.

Epericism doesn't make any moral suggestion. And as you rightly put, the observer makes the conclusions.

Which is where again relativism creeps in again, conclusions defer.

There are no moral facts, morality is an imagined order, no matter how you try, it is never empirical.

If morality is emperical then it is purely objective.

But that is the problem, the moral conclusions you make are relative, there are no empirical moral facts.

It's a belief

UyiIredia:


The thing I am realizing is that when it come to context that is not the case. Morality could be absolute or relative when it comes to context.

Morality can't be both relative and absolute.

That's the problem and the reason i am arguing on this thread

It is illogical for a moral relativist to make morally absolute judgements. That is a blatant contradiction that can never work.

You either agree morality is absolute or you don't. Not both

GeneralShepherd:


Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

Thank you, finally!!!

Someone gets it.

I'm gonna cry

GeneralShepherd:


Intresting arguments but now you are appealing to science for moral guidance?

You do realise that in universities that there is a reason science students study philosophy ?

Science in its raw form does not posit any moral framework. Science is just science, you then interprete scientific findings through a moral framework which outside the realms of science . Hence why philosophy is part of most science degrees

Coolusername does not really grasp the argument. He is arguing for an empirical moral framework which is just as good as saying morality is an objectice intrinsic universal value. Lol.

Science saying, smoking may kill you, is not science saying "smoking is wrong"

The findings of science are not moral positions, Coolusername seems to think it is. Lol.

That is what i have been arguing since here.

johnydon22:
Morality can't be both relative and absolute.

That's the problem and the reason i am arguing on this thread

It is illogical for a moral relativist to make morally absolute judgements. That is a blatant contradiction that can never work.

You either agree morality is absolute or you don't. Not both

Let me make it clear that what I am saying is depending on the context morality is relative or absolute. IOW, in some moral cases moral relativism applies and in some cases moral absolutes work.

In case you didn't know moral absolutes never worked completely in a person's life. It's not like they made dogmas over which dress you wear. Yes, Christians can be dogmatic but you get the point.

UyiIredia:


The thing I am realizing is that when it come to context that is not the case. Morality could be absolute or relative when it comes to context.

Hmmm... unfortunately objectivity is devoid of context , context is applicable only when talking about subjective issues.

For example Oxygen is oxygen , if the chemical composition of oxygen changes it seizes to be oxygen but becomes a completely different compound.

In the same vein morality is either subjective or objective, it cannot be both interchangeable for after it becomes subjective it can no longer go back to being objective .

When any thing is said to be objective the inherent characteristic of such a thing is the fact that it's attributes are immutable and does not depend on the subjective views of its observer.

Think about it. Can you be morally absolute or morally relative about EVERYTHING?

UyiIredia:
Think about it. Can you be morally absolute or morally relative about EVERYTHING?

You are either morally absolute or relativistic about everything.

People are mostly relativists anyway.

That is why the only way for moral absolutism to be possible, moral determinism must be taken away from humans. It appeals to a transcendent moral authority - hence God in theism.

UyiIredia:
Think about it. Can you be morally absolute or morally relative about EVERYTHING?

Can you show me how morality can be subjective sometimes and then objective other times?

johnydon22:
Why is continuity good?

Because of human activities. Suffering deprived human activities and these can be a threat to human survival.

What bearing does this have on your moral conclusion?

For human race to continue, we need to avoid chaotic and harmful things.

Aren't you still assuming that these things first of all are wrong?

Nope, I just demonstrated why child marriage is wrong with fact.

tintingz:
Because if human activities. Suffering deprived human activities and these can be a threat to human survival.

Why is human survival good?

For human race to continue, we need to avoid chaotic and harmful things.

Why do you assume human survival can be good or bad?

Nope, I just demonstrated why child marriage is wrong with fact.

Actually No, you just gave me scientific findings then make logical conclusions on them.

There are no empirical moral basis.

Science saying pedophilia causes VVF is not same as science saying "Pedophilia is wrong"

The assertion of science doesn't possess any inherent moral quality, the moral conclusions you arrive at however is as a result of you making moral assumptions about these.

johnydon22:
and if they generally accept the opposite?

Then that society will fail (i.e., be absorbed or obliterated by others) in a couple of generations. That is why most societies in existence try to preserve themselves.

johnydon22:


Is it moral?

You are a relativist innit?

Not to me, not to most people.

johnydon22:

Epericism doesn't make any moral suggestion. And as you rightly put, the observer makes the conclusions.

Which is where again relativism creeps in again, conclusions defer.

There are no moral facts, morality is an imagined order, no matter how you try, it is never empirical.

If morality is emperical then it is purely objective.

But that is the problem, the moral conclusions you make are relative, there are no empirical moral facts.

It's a belief

I never said my judgment was an undeniable fact, that was never my argument. I said that paedophilia is immoral and that there is overwhelming consensus against it. All true.

You said I shouldn't be making such judgments as a moral relativity which is nonsensical because we all make judgments based on our beliefs. If you don't, then morality doesn't even exist.

CoolUsername:

Then that society will fail (i.e., be absorbed or obliterated by others) in a couple of generations. That is why most societies in existence try to preserve themselves.

Islam doesn't seem to be getting the memo then

Not to me, not to most people.

Exactly

I never said my judgment was an undeniable fact, that was never my argument. I said that paedophilia is immoral and that there is overwhelming consensus against it. All true.

Oh i agree, i am saying however that you as a moral relativist cannot assert Muhammed was morally wrong because that would mean applying the moral consensus or framework of today to someone who conformed to a different moral framework.

The only way for that to work is that morality is an absolute quality that remains unchanging across time and social circle.

You said I shouldn't be making such judgments as a moral relativity which is nonsensical because we all make judgments based on our beliefs. If you don't, then morality doesn't even exist.

I didn't say you shouldn't be making such judgements as a relativist, i am saying your moral framework only applies within the purview of your intersubjective clime which can be defined by time or social distinctions.

Therefore a moral relativist cannot conclusively say A is wrong from a moral framework of B.

Rilwayne001:
You're veering off the main argument now. Like I said earlier, age is not specified as regards marriage in islam, what the Sharia state is whenever the parties are physically, financially and emotionally ready for it. Since age is not specified, we can then from our societal norms and cultures develop our own age of physically and emotionally fit for marriage.

Thsi^ is not too hard to comprehend I suppose.

Whether age is specified isn't an issue the issue is as Theist who believes morality is objective.

Do you think a sovereign God will command a man of 54years to marry a girl of 9 years in any culture or any age?

Muhammad could have solved this issue for Muslims if it comes under human error like the case of Lot in the Bible but unfortunately he claimed Allah is the very One that endorsed the marriage.

GeneralShepherd:


Can you show me how morality can be subjective sometimes and then objective other times?

For starters, I don't believe people who believe in moral absolutes think it applies in all cases believe it or not there are many cases they think meals could swing either way. Like the dress issue I brought up.

Lol, finding your questions interesting.

johnydon22:
Why is human survival good?

For humanity not to go extinct.

Why do you assume human survival can be good or bad?

It's not an assumption, it's part of human instinct to see survival as good.

Actually No, you just gave me scientific findings then make logical conclusions on them.

There are no empirical moral basis.

Science saying pedophilia causes VVF is not same as science saying "Pedophilia is wrong"

The assertion of science doesn't possess any inherent moral quality, the moral conclusions you arrive at however is as a result of you making moral assumptions about these.

I never made mention of science giving the moral basis, I gave a fact why pedophile is harmful to young girls/human race.

It's a fact that can be practicalize and find to be horrible.