johnydon22:
Ok
God himself is the transcendent assumption upon which theistic morality is built. The fundamental argument of theism on morality is that "morality is objective"
Unless you are saying morality is socially defined and not given by defined by God.

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.

johnydon22:
This reduces moral judgements to opinions, you may say Muhammed was wrong, another may say he is right - since we are all making subjective moral judgements, neither opinion out weights the other.

A subjective moral basis is meaningless. Morality at best is intersubjective and require fundamental beliefs about the moral subjects that translates into the moral weight of a given action.


Since Muhammed was clearly acting based an accepted moral structure of his time - he is far from being wrong.

Judging something that happened 1500 years ago with the moral or even legal framework of today, doesn't follow. Unless you are saying that morality is objective and remains unchanged and binding - which i am sure you are not saying.

I think intersubjectivity is a simple enough way of describing what most moral relativists really mean when we say that morality is subjective since a lot people seem to misunderstand it.

However, the case still stands that the best that a religious leader and a supposedly perfect man could do was reflect the morality of his time.

This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that even in modern times people still is his actions to justify their own padephilia. Do you see any Muslim on this thread saying "yes, the prophet messed up here"? No they defend his actions, ironically using some variation of one of the responses in the meme I posted.

CoolUsername:


I think intersubjectivity is a simple enough way of describing what most moral relativists really mean when we say that morality is subjective since a lot people seem to misunderstand it.

However, the case still stands that the best that a religious leader and a supposedly perfect man could do was reflect the morality of his time.

Because to suggest to be perfect was to reflect the morality of your own time is by implication an argument that your own moral position is better - again this consequentially implies that morality transcends social definition therefore objective.

This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that even in modern times people still is his actions to justify their own padephilia. Do you see any Muslim on this thread saying "yes, the prophet messed up here"? No they defend his actions, ironically using some variation of one of the responses in the meme I posted.

Actually, no muslim can say the prophet messed up because he didn't - His actions were simply in coincide with the moral framework of his society and time. Even you cannot argue the prophet was wrong because that would be just like pouring a fanta into a bottle of stout.

If you are saying the prophet is wrong then you are arguing that morality is objective and transcends whatever the society or time defines it as.

So, your argument here is like eating your cake and having it again.

If morality is defined by society and time - then any action that falls within that social framework is moral - therefore Muhammed on this ground isn't wrong.

You are arguing that morality is socially defined and also insisting that a man whose actions coincides with the social moral framework of his time is morally wrong, how the fuccccck does that work?

Unless of course you are saying morality is objective and whatever is wrong is wrong no matter what a society or a particular timeline of human history thinks - but you are not.

malvisguy212:
back then the people accepted it and it was there culture. how about now ? is this culture good ? would you give your daughter hand in marriage to an old man just because the Quran say it alright ?

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

rekinomtla:


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

Exactly

CoolUsername:


[s]
Which is horrible, but at least there's a significant chance that a 12 year old girl has begun puberty. Also, marrying a 12 year old does not fall under the strictest definition of paedophilia but rather hebophilia, which is still horrible but marginally less so than paedophilia.

Furthermore, you would expect that a man chosen by Allah, a so-called perfect man to not be paedophile. Why should he follow the barbaric ways of the past when he's supposed to be a timeless example of perfection?[/s]

You're merely being thoughtless..What are the reasons minimum age of marriage began to be legally set up? think about that and see why,for the most part,it becomes absurd applying it, exactly,to such a time and environment and even terming such "barbaric".Also,I think I've read an hadith of her already having mensuration at the consummation of their marriage.
If any was a pedophile,wouldn't it have been quite obvious ...in fact,most of his wives he married as widows,married to spend the remainder of their lives together( just how long would she have remained a "child" )even if she lived more than a hundred years...All this makes your pedophilia tag even more absurd.
Were we not to be aware of the hadith about His marriage to Aisha,the Islamic stance on marriage would almost remain the same.Justifying marrying nine year olds today because He(SAW) probably did it then Its in parallel to refusing modern healthcare because the Prophet didn't use them...they are both wrong.
Aisha(RA) was probably the greatest of His(SAW) wives,the most jovial,and from every indication they had a happy married life.

rekinomtla:


You labeling him as a paedophile according to the customs and views of your society. People of his time did not share your views. You can't subscribe to moral relativism and at the same time condemn people from different societies as pedophiles.

He's a paedophile by the literal definition of the word. He was a fully grown man who was sexually attracted to young children.

Most people who subscribe to moral relativism still know that general societal consensus is used as the standard although subject to change. So, sorry to say, most people are against paedophilia.

rekinomtla:

They have a different view than you regarding marriage. You can't condemn them for that and simultaneously say morality is relative.

Also you seem to forget that objectively weighing the effects of paedophilia, there are marked negative social, economic, and mental effects to it.

CoolUsername:


He's a paedophile by the literal definition of the word. He was a fully grown man who was sexually attracted to young children.

Most people who subscribe to moral relativism still know that general societal consensus is used as the standard although subject to change. So, sorry to say, most people are against paedophilia.



Also you seem to forget that objectively weighing the effects of paedophilia, there are marked negative social, economic, and mental effects to it.

Again, the problem here is moral relativity. You seem not be understanding the implication of that position.

Let me try and simplify it.

it means any given action is objectively morally neutral.

society A says it is wrong - then it is wrong for society A not for everyone else.

society B says it is right - then it is right for society B and not for everyone else.

As a moral relativist, you cannot say someone who conforms to the standards of society B is wrong because that directly contradicts your idea of moral relativism.

Only an objective moral basis can be wrong or right across localities or time.

CoolUsername:


He's a paedophile by the literal definition of the word. He was a fully grown man who was sexually attracted to young children.

Most people who subscribe to moral relativism still know that general societal consensus is used as the standard although subject to change. So, sorry to say, most people are against paedophilia.



Also you seem to forget that objectively weighing the effects of paedophilia, there are marked negative social, economic, and mental effects to it.

"Sexually attracted to young children"...really

rekinomtla:
How are atheists criticizing aisha marriage when they believe society is the source of morality? If the marriage was normal and accepted by the society back then, then the atheist has no valid objections. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either morality is relative/subjective or it is not.

What If I demonstrate why their practice was wrong?

tintingz:
What If I demonstrate why their practice was wrong?

I would truly like this. Go on

tartar9:

"Sexually attracted to young children"...really

Yeah, like diddling a 9 year old.

johnydon22:


Again, the problem here is moral relativity. You seem not be understanding the implication of that position.

Let me try and simplify it.

it means any given action is objectively morally neutral.

society A says it is wrong - then it is wrong for society A not for everyone else.

society B says it is right - then it is right for society B and not for everyone else.

As a moral relativist, you cannot say someone who conforms to the standards of society B is wrong because that directly contradicts your idea of moral relativism.

Only an objective moral basis can be wrong or right across localities or time.

That's where you're wrong. Demonstrating, the negative effects that an act can have on an individual and societal level can be used to argue whether it should be allowed or not.

Also, in modern times, societies are no longer isolated. So society A and B have to come to some sort of compromise in order to coexist.

tintingz:
What If I demonstrate why their practice was wrong?

Go ahead.

CoolUsername:


That's where you're wrong. Demonstrating, the negative effects that an act can have on an individual and societal level can be used to argue whether it should be allowed or not.

Something being allowed or not is not same thing as being moral. Something can be legal but still immoral and vise versa.

Also, in modern times, societies are no longer isolated. So society A and B have to come to some sort of compromise in order to coexist.

LMAO. Actually, societies have always been isolated. International relations have always been something present in earthly politics from the ancient times.

You have to make up your mind; it is either morality is relative (subjective and local) or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

But it remains; it is blatantly illogical for a moral relativist to make moral conclusions on the actions of others outside his intersubjective clique because there is absolutely no basis for that.

CoolUsername:


Yeah, like diddling a 9 year old.

I guess you ignored this on purpose:

"You're merely being thoughtless..What are the reasons minimum age of marriage began to be legally set up? think about that and see why,for the most part,it becomes absurd applying it, exactly,to such a time and environment and even terming such "barbaric".Also,I think I've read an hadith of her already having mensuration at the consummation of their marriage.
If any was a pedophile,wouldn't it have been quite obvious ...in fact,most of his wives he married as widows,married to spend the remainder of their lives together( just how long would she have remained a "child" )even if she lived more than a hundred years...All this makes your pedophilia tag even more absurd.
Were we not to be aware of the hadith about His marriage to Aisha,the Islamic stance on marriage would almost remain the same.Justifying marrying nine year olds today because He(SAW) probably did it then Its in parallel to refusing modern healthcare because the Prophet didn't use them...they are both wrong.
Aisha(RA) was probably the greatest of His(SAW) wives,the most jovial,and from every indication they had a happy married life"

johnydon22:
Because to suggest to be perfect was to reflect the morality of your own time is by implication an argument that your own moral position is better - again this consequentially implies that morality transcends social definition therefore objective.

Actually, no muslim can say the prophet messed up because he didn't - His actions were simply in coincide with the moral framework of his society and time. Even you cannot argue the prophet was wrong because that would be just like pouring a fanta into a bottle of stout.

If you are saying the prophet is wrong then you are arguing that morality is objective and transcends whatever the society or time defines it as.

So, your argument here is like eating your cake and having it again.

If morality is defined by society and time - then any action that falls within that social framework is moral - therefore Muhammed on this ground isn't wrong.

You are arguing that morality is socially defined and also insisting that a man whose actions coincides with the social moral framework of his time is morally wrong, how the fuccccck does that work?

Unless of course you are saying morality is objective and whatever is wrong is wrong no matter what a society or a particular timeline of human history thinks - but you are not.

I think it's still subjective.

johnydon22:
Because to suggest to be perfect was to reflect the morality of your own time is by implication an argument that your own moral position is better - again this consequentially implies that morality transcends social definition therefore objective.

You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml

johnydon22:

Actually, no muslim can say the prophet messed up because he didn't - His actions were simply in coincide with the moral framework of his society and time. Even you cannot argue the prophet was wrong because that would be just like pouring a fanta into a bottle of stout.

If you are saying the prophet is wrong then you are arguing that morality is objective and transcends whatever the society or time defines it as.

So, your argument here is like eating your cake and having it again.

If morality is defined by society and time - then any action that falls within that social framework is moral - therefore Muhammed on this ground isn't wrong.

You are arguing that morality is socially defined and also insisting that a man whose actions coincides with the social moral framework of his time is morally wrong, how the fuccccck does that work?

Unless of course you are saying morality is objective and whatever is wrong is wrong no matter what a society or a particular timeline of human history thinks - but you are not.

I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

rekinomtla:


Go ahead.

What causes VVF?

johnydon22:
I would truly like this. Go on

I hope you know what causes VVF?

johnydon22:
I actually agree with him. An atheist or someone with secular moral background has no basis to morally condemn that

What in the world is this...what's happening to u johnny?

Society/humans decides what's moral or not based on a whole lit of factors... Evil acts are not condemned just for the sake of it, but base din how it affects us.

CoolUsername:


You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml

Then your argument isn't on the moral position of the action but the physical implications?

I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

You have to first of all assume these things are wrong - moral relativity again comes into place.

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

LOL. Again you are assuming they are wrong based on your moral relativistic standpoint.

tartar9:

I guess you ignored this on purpose:

"You're merely being thoughtless..What are the reasons minimum age of marriage began to be legally set up? think about that and see why,for the most part,it becomes absurd applying it, exactly,to such a time and environment and even terming such "barbaric".Also,I think I've read an hadith of her already having mensuration at the consummation of their marriage.
If any was a pedophile,wouldn't it have been quite obvious ...in fact,most of his wives he married as widows,married to spend the remainder of their lives together( just how long would she have remained a "child" )even if she lived more than a hundred years...All this makes your pedophilia tag even more absurd.
Were we not to be aware of the hadith about His marriage to Aisha,the Islamic stance on marriage would almost remain the same.Justifying marrying nine year olds today because He(SAW) probably did it then Its in parallel to refusing modern healthcare because the Prophet didn't use them...they are both wrong.
Aisha(RA) was probably the greatest of His(SAW) wives,the most jovial,and from every indication they had a happy married life"

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

CoolUsername:


You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml



I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

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?

frank317:


What in the world is this...what's happening to u johnny?

Absolutely nothing - I am beginning to find that most of you do not realize the implications of the arguments we make.

there are three principles of arguments;

Logos - logic
pathos - emotions
ethos - ethics

For the subject of morality, the arguments here are mostly based on pathos not logic

Society/humans decides what's moral or not based on a whole lit of factors... Evil acts are not condemned just for the sake of it, but base din how it affects us.

Therefore moral relativity doesn't give you the basis to condemn a different moral approach because the point here is the argument that morality is relative.

The only way 1 moral basis would stand for everyone at every time is if morality is objective.

Again, this is the dilemma of secular morality, you can argue that morality is subjective at the same time make general moral judgements with an objective principle.

if you insist that morality is socially defined - this simply means that any action that is socially defined as moral at any given time is in fact moral to that time and society.

You can only judge this same action as it applies to the moral framework of today on today's human.

Moral relativity

tintingz:
I hope you know what causes VVF?

I don't know. So?

tintingz:
What causes VVF?

I don't know, I'm not a doctor. How does it demonstrate that a marriage conducted in 7th century Arabia was morally wrong?

johnydon22:
Something being allowed or not is not same thing as being moral. Something can be legal but still immoral and vise versa.

Your statement is true but you fail to realize that morality itself evolved from a utilitarian viewpoint; i.e., behaviours that benefit the group are good and those that cause harm are bad. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but this underlying premise still till today.

johnydon22:

LMAO. Actually, societies have always been isolated. International relations have always been something present in earthly politics from the ancient times..

That's a blatantly false statement to make in these times, with ICT, air travel, and the global stock market, we depend on each other more than ever. This phenomenon is only going to get not pronounced if we continue in this trajectory.

johnydon22:

You have to make up your mind; it is either morality is relative (subjective and local) or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

But it remains; it is blatantly illogical for a moral relativist to make moral conclusions on the actions of others outside his intersubjective clique because there is absolutely no basis for that.

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.

rekinomtla:


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

it's is either you support or you are against it.

johnydon22:


An atheist can, but such moral condemnations require a basis that transcends secular moral conclusions.

And that basis is?

CoolUsername:


Your statement is true but you fail to realize that morality itself evolved from a utilitarian viewpoint; i.e., behaviours that benefit the group are good and those that cause harm are bad. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but this underlying premise still till today.

So?

That's a blatantly false statement to make in these times, with ICT, air travel, and the global stock market, we depend on each other more than ever. This phenomenon is only going to get not pronounced if we continue in this trajectory.

Does this preclude the sovereignty of each country?

Common men, international relations have always been there - obviously the world is different today in terms of application and tech.

Neither precludes the sovereignty of each society and neither eliminates the practice of moral relativity.

What is wrong in Nigeria isn't necessarily regarded same in America.

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.

You are simply making moral assumptions on the consequence of an action. It is funny when people do this but most people do.

Take for instance, this is an analogy:

Is pedophilia wrong?
yes.
Why?
Because it hurts people
Is hurting people wrong?
Yes
Why?

See, empiricism is never the determinant of abstract concepts like morality, never works like that because such concepts take derivative basis from a fundamental belief that transcends empirical application.

See, my argument with you isn't on morality, my argument here remains on the position that morality is subjective hence relative.
if morality is relative then your moral basis is just as relative
therefore you cannot using the moral framework applicable within your own intersubjective clime, condemn an action with coincides with a different moral framework within an unrelated intersubjective clime.

By all means say that muslims today are wrong if they practice pedophilia, that is correct.

Say that people 1,500 are wrong?

There are no more wrong than you are on actions we deem moral today that would be considered immoral 1000 years from now.

Only an objective moral basis can make the argument that something is wrong across time and society not a moral relativistic argument.

So, you have to make up your mind; if you think morality is subjective (relative) then you can't say Muhammed was wrong.

if you however think morality is objective (not-arbitrary) then you can say Muhammed was wrong.

hahn:


And that basis is?

The belief of a Non-arbitrary value on the subject.

Note: Moral subject is different from moral action.

johnydon22:
The belief of a Non-arbitrary value on the subject.

A non-arbitrary value like?

Note: Moral subject is different from moral action.

Got it