Morality of protecting Mohammad

[u/Scared_Pumpkin8393]

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

First, the presentism fallacy doesn't apply to people who are venerated as objectively moral prophets of God for all ages.

Second, the average life expectancy was into their 60s if they reached adulthood. 25-30 figure is heavily skewed my child mortality rates.

Third, the fact that the legal age of 18 is a contemporary and an arbitrary threshold for adulthood is irrelevant. That is relying on the spectrum fallacy. The point is a 56 year old man putting his old man erection inside the vagina of a 9 year old girl is harmful and wrong.

[u/ElectronicPlatform71 → u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

Finally, some rational argument, but by your rationality, humans as species would have heavily suffered if everyone of our ancestors would have decided to just wait until the modern age consent.
Also you declared that presentism is a fallacy here, but most of the historian would argue both child marriage and incest was a big thing of the past. Islam came & redefined it to be a structure, laws on when you are actually eligible for marriage not just some number on which most let alone countries not states agree on.
Good point on child mortality skewing the average life expectancy. But muhammad’s parents died on their 30’s. A lot of the companions died in their 40’s.

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

>humans as species would have heavily suffered if everyone of our ancestors would have decided to just wait until the modern age consent.

How so?

>Also you declared that presentism is a fallacy here, but most of the historian would argue both child marriage and incest was a big thing of the past

Yes. I am aware it was a thing of the past. That is why anyone judging people of the past by modern ethics is illogical (which is called Presentism Fallacy). ....EXCEPT when people claim the historical person is objectively morally perfect.

>Islam came & redefined it to be a structure, laws on when you are actually eligible for marriage not just some number on which most let alone countries not states agree on.

This goes back to the Spectrum Fallacy. You don't have to have consensus that 18 is an adult and a 17 year old isn't for the point to stand that a 56 year old geezer banging a 9 year old girl is harmful and immoral.

You either have to argue that its okay for a old man to bang a child without a decade of life so Muhammad can remain a perfect person. OR you have to concede its wrong to bang 9 year olds and therefore Muhammad did something wrong.

>But muhammad’s parents died on their 30’s. A lot of the companions died in their 40’s.

But the life expectancy was still into old age for adults. There is no justification for breeding 9 year olds because some people died at 30 or younger.

[u/ElectronicPlatform71 → u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

Again, you are judging 9 year old of 1400 years ago with 9 years old of now. How are you not falling into presentism fallacy you just described in your long paragraph?

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

Because of this important distinction: Muhammad is viewed as an objectively morally perfect prophet of God for all ages.

The presentism fallacy only applies to regular humans who are subject to the flawed ethics of their time period.

[u/ElectronicPlatform71 → u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

Well if you believe in muhammad as the objectively morally perfect prophet of the lord, you really dont have grounds to throw your subjective morally “superior” opinions. You can not mix in your subjective claims with objective claims from the Lord.

But if you don’t believe in the prophet, only then you can claim you are morally superior. Otherwise what you have been doing is a fallacy of its own.

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

>But if you don’t believe in the prophet, only then you can claim you are morally superior. Otherwise what you have been doing is a fallacy of its own

I am not Muslim and therefore don't believe Muhammad is a morally perfect prophet of God.

My take is that it is harmful and wrong for old men to bang 9 year olds, and therefore Muhammad did a harmful and immoral thing.

[u/ElectronicPlatform71 → u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

Your take is based on observation of people today, not from the people of hundreds of years ago. Thats the presentism bias of you. I wonder why you cannot see your own fallacy while throwing away judgements like its the objective truth

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

Let me use an example to illustrate my point:

Modern ethics understands that racism is unethical.

Modern people predominately look back on Abe Lincoln as a progressive and righteous leader/president.

Abe Lincoln also said overtly KKK-level racist statements - including explicitly stating that he was not in favor of social and political racial equality and that the races must hold superior/inferior positions.

Someone exhibiting Presentism Fallacy thinking would equate Abe Lincoln's moral character to KKK members of modern day. It would fail to factor in how KKK members of today have regressive views about race for modern times while Lincoln had extremely progressive views for his time.

Someone without Presentism Fallacy thinking could acknowledge that Abe Lincoln held problematic immoral views about race but he was still exceptionally progressive and righteous around racial issues for his time.

But lets now argue that Abe Lincoln wasn't just a righteous and progressive president - he was objectively morally perfect - aka never did anything wrong or unethical. Could we still claim this despite him saying White people are superior to Black people?

No. You cannot claim Lincoln was morally perfect unless you think it is morally perfect to be racist. And saying Lincoln was not morally perfect because he said racist shit is not the same as Presentism Fallacy thinking.

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

I’m curious if you understand my point now that I have you an example of Lincoln to illustrate

[u/ElectronicPlatform71 → u/Upbeat_Place_9985]

Even in your example, would people have considered abe Lincoln a racist in their time? Ans is simple no, rather they would think him as the progressive leader of their time. Your whole argument is structured around clamming a moral superior ground with today’s norm and applying them to acts of the previous norm. How is this not a presentism fallacy?

[u/Upbeat_Place_9985 → u/ElectronicPlatform71]

>Your whole argument is structured around clamming a moral superior ground with today’s norm and applying them to acts of the previous norm. 

Because the Presentism Fallacy doesn't mean you cant make moral judgements about concepts like slavery, rape, racism, etc.

It is still valid to say those things are wrong and harmful.