Agrippina wrote:That's right let's ignore the lessons from history and the examples in history. Of course the history of Islam is only a good, clean, healthy one, that's why the behaviours that were relevant in the 8th century are still relevant today. Whereas in all the rest of the world's history we can look back and say "we were wrong" and correct the bahviour so that the wrongs are never repeated again. If you live in Saudi Arabia however, you can carry on humping, don't worry about the age of the person involved as long as it's men doing the humping and the objects being humped are female (no age restrictions) and then just because they have the nerve to ask for education, you can let them feel what burning in hell forever is going to feel like.

Your not even talking about OP any more.

Rollerlocked wrote:If there is no objective morality, then how and why should we condemn the brutal misogyny of Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't it be "their social contract, their morality"? Can you shine the sun of your benign tolerance, no, approval, on the mutaween as they chase little girls back into a burning building? After all, there's no objective morality. The filthy little sluts were going to appear in public insufficiently clad. Better that they burn.

So let me get this straight your saying objective morality exists because if it didn't exist you couldn't condem misogny?
Do we all get to make up shit to statsify our emotional needs or is that privillage just for you?

virphen wrote:The issue isn't that what was considered wrong in the past now, the issue is that people alive now want to hold up a 7th century figure who lived by 7th century morals as the example of how everyone should live today. Moral relativism is a big fat rotting and stinking red herring.

I've repeatedly said that you can not beleive Mohamed was just a man and condem him for this. The collarary is of course that people who beleive him to be a moral example have some moral explaining to do.

Rollerlocked wrote:I would claim precisely that pedophilia, rape, and murder were equally wrong at all times, although societies have varied in the degree to which they have recognized this.

So your saying that cavemen who raped for procreation 100000 years ago were morallary wrong? How far back exactly does you magical moral scale go back ? I'm not even sure you see the problem here.

Madmaili wrote:
So your saying that cavemen who raped for procreation 100000 years ago were morallary wrong? How far back exactly does you magical moral scale go back ? I'm not even sure you see the problem here.

Er, Madmaili, just how have you come to linking rape to the purpose of procreation?? I agree we're on shifty ground arguing about "objective" morality, but so are you when you put forward this kind of rhetorical questions.

Good point though about how far in the past we can go and still apply any judgements.

It is a rhetorical question, it's the only way to respond to rank nonsense like rape murder and pedophillia were always wrong.

Madmaili wrote:It is a rhetorical question, it's the only way to respond to rank nonsense like rape murder and pedophillia were always wrong.

We're not talking about cavemen, we're talking about Mohammed in case you didn't notice the title of the thread.
Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.
Now please stop fighting me. I don't care if anyone thinks I'm over-reacting , over-objectifying or over the moon, making 10 or 15 or 25 year old girls marry men they've never met and allowing these 'husband's" to rape them without any recourse to law, is wrong. And that's the end of that.

I didn't mean to start a war. I just wanted to clarify what I heard.

BigRed wrote:I didn't mean to start a war. I just wanted to clarify what I heard.

I would say it was clarified dont you.

The thread "I am a muslim" has also a lot of information.

The whole subject just makes my blood boil,

Thanks guys. I agree it is a touchy subject.

Madmaili wrote:
So let me get this straight your saying objective morality exists because if it didn't exist you couldn't condem misogny?
Do we all get to make up shit to statsify our emotional needs or is that privillage just for you?

No, I'm asking why condemn misogyny in another culture if objective morality doesn't exist?

Rollerlocked wrote:I would claim precisely that pedophilia, rape, and murder were equally wrong at all times, although societies have varied in the degree to which they have recognized this.

So your saying that cavemen who raped for procreation 100000 years ago were morallary wrong? How far back exactly does you magical moral scale go back ? I'm not even sure you see the problem here.

"Cavemen" 100,000 years ago were humans. Homo sapiens. My moral scale goes back at least as far as recognizably Homo sapiens humans were walking about.
If there's a problem in believing rape, pedophilia, and murder wrong, I hope I always have this problem.

Madmaili wrote:It is a rhetorical question, it's the only way to respond to rank nonsense like rape murder and pedophillia were always wrong.

Under what circumstances do you belive they are right?

Rollerlocked wrote:No, I'm asking why condemn misogyny in another culture if objective morality doesn't exist?

Aren't subjective human preferences and simple fairness enough to condem misogny, or racism for that matter?

Rollerlocked wrote: "Cavemen" 100,000 years ago were humans. Homo sapiens. My moral scale goes back at least as far as recognizably Homo sapiens humans were walking about. If there's a problem in believing rape, pedophilia, and murder wrong, I hope I always have this problem.

Fair enough

Madmaili wrote:Under what circumstances do you belive they are right?

In circumstances that predate our understanding that it was wrong.

Madmaili wrote:

Rollerlocked wrote:No, I'm asking why condemn misogyny in another culture if objective morality doesn't exist?

Aren't subjective human preferences and simple fairness enough to condem misogny, or racism for that matter?

But some people prefer misogyny and racism. What about their preferences?
This thread is about one person who preferred misogyny.

Rollerlocked wrote: "Cavemen" 100,000 years ago were humans. Homo sapiens. My moral scale goes back at least as far as recognizably Homo sapiens humans were walking about. If there's a problem in believing rape, pedophilia, and murder wrong, I hope I always have this problem.

Fair enough

Madmaili wrote:Under what circumstances do you belive they are right?

In circumstances that predate our understanding that it was wrong.

I expect that in the victim's understanding, such things have always been wrong.

Rollerlocked wrote: But some people prefer misogyny and racism. What about their preferences?
This thread is about one person who preferred misogyny.

So the fact that people over the centuries have had a variety of opinions on what is and what is not moral leads you to think morality is objective?

Rollerlocked wrote:I expect that in the victim's understanding, such things have always been wrong.

So morality is objective , because people belive certain things to be subjectivley wrong?

Madmaili wrote:

Rollerlocked wrote: But some people prefer misogyny and racism. What about their preferences?
This thread is about one person who preferred misogyny.

So the fact that people over the centuries have had a variety of opinions on what is and what is not moral leads you to think morality is objective?

No, it leads me to believe that over the centuries people have been wrong, just as people who had a variety of opinions about the arrangement of the solar system have been wrong.

Rollerlocked wrote:I expect that in the victim's understanding, such things have always been wrong.

So morality is objective , because people belive certain things to be subjectivley wrong?

I don't believe that the victim's experience of rape and pedophilia is merely subjective, nor their determination of the act's rightness or wrongness.

Rollerlocked wrote: No, it leads me to believe that over the centuries people have been wrong, just as people who had a variety of opinions about the arrangement of the solar system have been wrong.

The arrangment of the solar system is an emprical fact , do you think morality is an emprical fact?

Rollerlocked wrote:I don't believe that the victim's experience of rape and pedophilia is merely subjective, nor their determination of the act's rightness or wrongness.

I beleive you've just disqualified yourself from all rational boundaries and are happyliy running around dreamland. Excuse me if I don't follow.

Madmaili wrote:

Rollerlocked wrote: No, it leads me to believe that over the centuries people have been wrong, just as people who had a variety of opinions about the arrangement of the solar system have been wrong.

The arrangment of the solar system is an emprical fact , do you think morality is an emprical fact?

On matters concerning personhood, consent, and harm to others, I do.

Rollerlocked wrote:I don't believe that the victim's experience of rape and pedophilia is merely subjective, nor their determination of the act's rightness or wrongness.

I beleive you've just disqualified yourself from all rational boundaries and are happyliy running around dreamland. Excuse me if I don't follow.

Better dreamland than be confined within "rational boundaries" where rape and pedophilia are only contingently wrong.

I've been doing some reading about Islam in the last couple of days, both fiction and non-fiction and I have to ask the question. If people (no matter the age) are prepared to merely accept their fate, for instance in the past, a lot of serfs and slaves merely accepted their fate, i.e. that they were born to a life of servitude and never questioned it until someone who did question it came along and pointed out that it was wrong. So if women in Islam just accept their roles and little girls take their place in society as a given, in whose eyes is what happens to them "wrong?" Do people who are outside of that particular branch of the religion wrong for interfering?

My own opinion is that if someone is screaming, then the behaviour towards that someone is wrong and for this reason I am against practical jokes and teasing and bullying, but we're not discussing my opinion, (see the disclaimer below); and also kids scream about a lot of things that are done to them. They scream when they have their nails cut, and when they go for their first haircut, they scream when you put then in the bath and when you take them out again, some kids don't want their diapers changed or having a new one put on, others scream when they go to the dentist and so on. So if the screaming is merely because of the first occurrence of what to them is perfectly acceptable behaviour, and they then get used to it, is it wrong for us to place our "moral values" on their society. If their women accept that wearing the cover up clothes gives them the freedom to go about unrecognised, who are we to say that they should uncover? Why is our morality right and theirs wrong?

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that raping children is right, I'm merely looking for discussion and some clear thinking here. Personally I'm appalled and I'd like to see the men who do it hung, drawn and quartered (figuratively) this is purely academic, to provoke some open discussion.

[derail] This is the last of th muslim threads at present. Why is ray been given so much protection? [/derail]

Scot Dutchy wrote:[derail] This is the last of th muslim threads at present. Why is ray been given so much protection? [/derail]

He'll be back. Don't worry, maybe my post will bring him back because he'll think I've converted to his side.

Rollerlocked wrote:

Madmaili wrote:

Agrippina wrote: I was merely stating some historical facts and saying that historical behaviour doesn't excuse the same behaviour in modern times simply because the historical behaviour was performed by a hero. I then went on to say that maybe the concept of 'heroes' is a stupid one. No arguments, only statements.

I agree that histoical facts do not excuse behaviour in modern society, I also agree that the concept of hero is a stupid one. I still don't think I approve of dismissing historical relativism. It smacks too much of objective morality to me and strentchs morality beyond what I understand it to be a social contract. This could be a prespective thing.

If there is no objective morality, then how and why should we condemn the brutal misogyny of Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't it be "their social contract, their morality"? Can you shine the sun of your benign tolerance, no, approval, on the mutaween as they chase little girls back into a burning building? After all, there's no objective morality. The filthy little sluts were going to appear in public insufficiently clad. Better that they burn.

Morality may not be objective, but ethical choices based on consequences definitely can be objective...
why should we condemn misogyny? Because women have contributed to progress in countries which are more equality based in terms of gender, and by denying women their rights, we're denying the populace a chance at progress, and progress, unlike morality, can be objectified using a variety of parameters.

Why do we stop the Muttaween from chasing little girls back into the building? it can cause pain and death, and death can be objectively demonstrated to destabilize families, especially emotionally, and burns can be demonstrated to have horrific effects, not only on self-esteem and appearance but a variety of other mental and social aspects, and hence the right decision in this case would be to save the girls.

In other words, an objective morality needn't be a prerequisite for taking absolute ethical stances based on a consequentialist approach.

My two cents, ta.

GenesForLife wrote:In other words, an objective morality needn't be a prerequisite for taking absolute ethical stances based on a consequentialist approach.

My two cents, ta.

My own two cents...

Objective moral codes and objective moral decisions are probably not possible, simply because there are always competing claims on our ethics. Nevertheless, the basic rules governing what we judge to be moral can be said to have an objective basis so, even if our moral judgements are subjective (if that's not a tautology) this is not simply moral relativism and thus some actions, such as genocide and rape, can be shown to be so wholly failing in all the ethical bases we use as to be effectively objectively immoral.