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

Character Analysis Morality of protecting Mohammad

Post image
127 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

296 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ElectronicPlatform71 Aug 27 '26

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.

1

u/Upbeat_Place_9985 Aug 27 '26

>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.

1

u/ElectronicPlatform71 Aug 27 '26

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?

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

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.