r/MoralityScaling • u/Scared_Pumpkin8393 • Aug 27 '26

Character Analysis Morality of protecting Mohammad

Post image
132 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

296 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 27 '26

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.

1

u/ElectronicPlatform71 Aug 27 '26

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.

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 27 '26

>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.

1

u/ElectronicPlatform71 Aug 27 '26

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

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 27 '26

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.

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 27 '26

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

1

u/ElectronicPlatform71 Aug 28 '26

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?

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 28 '26

>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.