The thread which included the observation, that Mohammed of Mecca had chosen a six year old girl to be his wife, and then had sexual intercourse with her at age nine, got me thinking about the idea, apparently accepted by a lot of people, that certain things are moral in certain circumstances, and not moral in others. I haven't researched the legal systems of Moslem countries, but I would think that sex between a fifty year old man, and a nine year old girl, is today a felony in most of those countries, if not in all of them. Yet Mohammed is revered by Moslem believers as their dear and inspired prophet, and the descendants of Mohammed and Aisha are considered to have special status in Islam, despite the fact that what Mohammed did when he first had sex with her, and for years afterward, would be a crime today. (According to what I have been told, any Arab with the surname of Hussein, is supposed to be descended from Mohammed--I guess this was even true of Saddam Hussein.)

My impression, from reading the references to Mohammed's marriage to Aisha, is that Abu Bakr's objection to the marriage wasn't based on the child's age, but on the fact that Abu Bakr was Mohammed's stepbrother, and Aisha was therefore, under Arab law of the time, Mohammed's niece. (He of course wasn't a blood relative of the girl.) This suggests that child marriage was accepted in Arabia at the time.

So, was is okay for Mohammed to marry a child and consummate the marriage to her when she was nine years old, if that was an accepted practice in Arabia at the time? I seem also to have been told that in Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa some sexual contacts were described that were accepted in Samoa at the time, but which would be considered child molestation in the U.S. today.

So does the character of morality change over time, or from place to place, and are certain practices moral at certain times and in certain situations, and not moral in other circumstances? I personally don't find any religion believable, so it doesn't seem to me that we can refer to religious beliefs to establish an absolute standard for morality. But, at the same time, it seems to me that there is a kind of overriding moral standard which can be considered more or less universal and definable, and which doesn't include child molestation. I've read that some anthropologists think that, through most of prehistory, men began to have sexual intercourse with female children as soon as that could be done without the child screaming, carrying on, and suffering torn vaginal tissue. Men probably didn't penetrate girls younger than perhaps four years of age, but, if it made them feel good, and there was no one to stop them, it seems likely that men did start having sex with girls at a much earlier age than would be considered acceptable today. But would they have considered what they were doing to be morally right, or at least unobjectionable?

For myself, I never had to decide anything like that, because I have never felt any urge to have any sexual contact with preadolescent girls, and, in fact, the first time I had any erotic interest in a girl, she was a couple of years older than me. I find young children engaging because of their cheerfulness, forthrightness, and lack of pretense--to me, any erotic arousal produced by a small child would be inappropriate and would ruin the enjoyment of being with children.

I'm not sure that the lack of interest in pedophilia by someone like me is the result of the acceptance of a specific moral standard--little girls just don't arouse me erotically. But I have to think that, even if I were aroused, I would think it would be wrong to try to engage in sex with a child, or even with a girl younger than the late teens. That is to say, it seems to me that people do perceive a kind of universal moral standard, though the definition of it might not be exactly the same for everybody. Certainly, I think that what Mohammed did seems to most people, to be wrong. And just because society permits people to do things which are not consistent with a universal moral standard of that kind, that doesn't excuse what they do. In other words, I would say that Mohammed knew that what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyway.

Another interesting element in this is the recent publicity about dog fighting. I think a lot of people would say that it's immoral for people to induce dogs to engage in that type of violent mayhem to each other. Yet dog fighting has a long history, and was not outlawed, either in the U.S. or in England, until the nineteenth century. Was it moral before the laws against it were passed, and immoral afterward?

This whole question has a lot of applications in law, in anthropology, and in sociology. Any Moslem who believes that what Mohammed did was not wrong, would seem to me to be accepting the idea that morality depends on the time and place when something occurred. I wonder if Sharia law addresses the issue of pedophilia, and consequently appears to contradict the rightness of Mohammed's actions.

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:05 pm The thread which included the observation, that Mohammed of Mecca had chosen a six year old girl to be his wife, and then had sexual intercourse with her at age nine, got me thinking about the idea, apparently accepted by a lot of people, that certain things are moral in certain circumstances, and not moral in others.

Generally speaking, if you examine an action that seems to be moral in one set of circumstances, and immoral in another, it means that you're look at the wrong action.

Of course, the deal with Muhammed ISN'T one of those things -- he was just a disgusting pedophile. Think about it -- it takes the brainwashing force of an entire religion to convince Muslims that what Muhammed did was okay. If his actions were actually acceptable, at least SOME non-Muslims would agree. But they don't. The same goes for the genocidal wars described in the Old Testament; without the brainwashing power of the entire Christian religion, people would consider the actions described in the Old Testament to be evil and deplorable.

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:05 pm I'm not sure that the lack of interest in pedophilia by someone like me is the result of the acceptance of a specific moral standard--little girls just don't arouse me erotically. But I have to think that, even if I were aroused, I would think it would be wrong to try to engage in sex with a child, or even with a girl younger than the late teens.

I've always wondered how many pedophiles think that way. I mean, I simply can't believe that every single person who is sexually attracted to children ends up raping them. At least some of them -- if not most of them -- must have enough of a conscience to control their urges. But can you imagine a more terrible curse to be afflicted with? I'll be more than a few commit suicide over the torment they feel about it.

Naturally, we'll never know if the people I'm describing exist or not, since a) no one would EVER admit to it, and b) because they wouldn't hurt children, they would never come to the attention of law enforcement. If they do exist, then goddam does my sympathy go out to them. What a terrible burden they bear. Obviously any pedophile who DOES harm a child needs to be locked away forever. But those who do restrain themselves, they would have my deepest pity.

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:05 pm Another interesting element in this is the recent publicity about dog fighting. I think a lot of people would say that it's immoral for people to induce dogs to engage in that type of violent mayhem to each other. Yet dog fighting has a long history, and was not outlawed, either in the U.S. or in England, until the nineteenth century. Was it moral before the laws against it were passed, and immoral afterward?

Even back then, I know that a lot of people considered it wrong. The concept that cruelty to animals is a bad thing... isn't a new one. The thing is though, Humans have a deep and fundamental need for violence. After all, we're a race of hunters who survived by killing any animal that got in our way. Humans evolved in Africa -- home of some of the most aggressive predators on Earth. Without a violent, aggressive nature, our ancestors would have ended up as Tiger food.

Nowadays we can satisfy our instinctual need for violence through videogames, action and horror movies, contact sports, and so on. But in the past, you either had to start a fight and risk being seriously hurt, or make animals fight.

Our instinctual drives aren't always moral. One of the great things about modern society is that we have ways to satisfy some of those drives without hurting other people. That doesn't mean that it was okay to do these things in the past -- it just means that people, at some level, needed them. Think about eating meat; most people would be very uncomfortable actually killing an animal and butchering it themselves. Deep down, we don't want animals to die, and most people consider killing an animal to be wrong. But at the same time, we need food -- and the drive to eat meat is an extremely strong one. A lot of people (men in particular) will actually become depressed and listless if they don't eat meat at least once in a while (I know I do).

So animals have to take one for team, so to speak. We NEED meat; it doesn't make the killing of millions of animals every day moral, but it does make it necessary. Or consider taxes (it's deeply unethical to take people's money by force, but most people consider some level of taxation necessary), or wars (it's wrong to kill the Germans, but when they declare war on you and start blowing up your merchant vessels, it's necessary to put a stop to it).

So morality isn't situational. Necessity is situational, and sometimes morality takes a backseat. The mistake is to pretend that what you are doing is okay -- it's important to acknowledge that these things are bad. Otherwise, you wont try to change those necessities into unnecessaries (not a real word, but it'll do...).

Markdf,

It is good that a little IDEALISM has crept into your philosophy.

While legality and morality are not the same thing, they parallel each other with a strange correlation of sorts that is never close enough to be scientifically valid.

...the best creedo that I have found comes from medical practicioners...

"...first, do no harm."

Neither they now society truly does this in their dealings, but it is a FINE IDEAL for you to hold if you need one...

Wow, i actually agre with EVERYTHING markdf said! good post....

A-1 (imported) wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:47 am Markdf,

It is good that a little IDEALISM has crept into your philosophy.

What have I ever said that isn't idealistic? Like, the idealism of free thought -- that we should reject religion and slap anyone who watch Fox News. Or the idealism of socialism -- that we are inextricably bound together as a society. Or the idealism of personal freedom -- that people should be free to live how they please so long as they don't harm others. Or the idealism of courage -- not going around sniveling about how the terrorists are out to get me. Or the idealism of truth -- accepting reality, no matter how unpleasant, rather than believing a bunch of comforting delusions.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that I don't have any idealism.

First off the age below which intercourse was considered rape and the age at which marriage was permitted has changed greatly in Europe. To wit in England:

The age of consent for heterosexual acts was set at 12 by the Rape Act 1275 (3 Edw. I Cap. 13).

The Offences Against the Person act of 1861 (OAP, 24 & 25 Victoria, Cap. 94) made it a felony to have consensual sex with a girl under ten, and a misdemeanour with a girl between ten and twelve.

Amended 1875 to raise the age of consent to 13.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (48 & 49 Victoria Cap. 69) further changed that to 16.

Further it is a mistake to think of marriage and sex as entirely congruent. Typically early marriages (as early as 4 years old in some of the more extraordinary cases) were dynastic, about money and usually both. It was commonplace to have a marriage contract which stipulated a later date at which consummation was permitted.

There would be pressure on such arrangements to have a consummation as early as possible because in the eyes of the Church marriage was not valid until consummated. Indeed non-consummation remains a cause for annulment to this day.

So dirty old men and innocent young girls historically probably have a lot more to do with economic forces and religious requirements than paedophilia.

Lastly early marriage was an aristocratic foible. The vast bulk of people seem to have not married until their late teens or twenties. Typically an apprentice would not be permitted to marry until he'd become a journeyman.

There's a little known group in America that live in mobile home parks, are very clannish and roam the states offering to do a variety of repair jobs from roofing to laying concrete. Some say they are scam artists. They are called Irish Travelers.

They have custom in which girls as young as 9 are pledged in marriage to guys 20+ years their senior. I don't recall at what age they are actually wed.

"Situational morality" usually refers to the idea that behavior is evaluated according to the situation in which it occurs rather than according to unchanging moral rules. The phrase suggests disapproval. Two points -

First, "situational morality" is a relevant concept only within a community that has rules addressing the behavior in question. If there are no rules, or if the rules differ between communities, then comparisons between rule-bound and rule-breaking behavior can't be made. Second, there are in fact significant, extensively documented, differences in moral rules among communities - differences among different times, places, nations, cultures, local communities within nations, etc.

The popular notion that there are, or should be, universal moral rules comes from the belief that one's own rules are "natural," "obvious," "beyond doubt," and, of course, endorsed by the supernatural beings of choice. (I've never heard of anyone saying someone else's rules should apply.) This moral (and not always just moral) imperialism is compounded of ignorance about other peoples, a wish for consistency, and self-love. The trouble has always been that people's "obvious, natural, and God-given" moralities don't agree. Hostility, suspicion, war, and oppression result. Saying that another people is wicked is the first preparation for war, or for the dominance of one ethnic or racial group by another. In most societies, the lowest status groups are accused of immoral tendancies, and this rationalizes their continued suppression.

Yet the historical record is one of continual change and even ferment regarding morality. Each generation likes to stake out some moral "progress," to the despair of its elders, who say that ruin must follow. Those here who remember the 60's or 70's know that those were years of agonizing moral reassessment.

The respectable age in the US for marriage and child rearing has been growing later and later. In the 19th century, ordinary people may have married in their teens and began their farm careers. E.A. Poe married a 13-year-old, and no one cared. Today, people are still "kids" until they're past 30, an age when their ancestors were becoming grandparents. Today, teen pregnancy is seen as a problem to be solved and a tragedy for the individual, yet 150 years ago, many women had their first child when still teens. Were they immoral? They might have thought we were immoral to exploit our longer life spans by delaying a natural process in pursuit of education and career. Where marriages are arranged by families (still true for most people in the world), it's common for these arrangements to be concluded while the future bride and groom are still children; marriages may occur between children - it's assumed they can wait until they're older before starting sexual behavior. Polygamy and polyandry have been normal in many places and times.

What about killing? Well, it's OK if you're a soldier at war, or a policeman facing a criminal, or defending yourself against assault, or even if you belong to a high status group and kill someone of a low status group. What about stealing? Well, it's not stealing if it's done by the government - "eminent domain," punitive fines (RICO Act confiscations), and even taxes. As one reads history, or looks around the world, inconsistencies far more striking turn up. My own great-grandmother was murdered by an Orthodox priest - he was offended at the sight of an old Jewish woman in the street, so he pulled out a pistol and shot her - who was never reproached for what he did, because it did not violate the "situational morality" of the time and place - 19th century Belarus.

So if someone wants to start a jihad against Islam, just be honest enough to say you want to murder the sand niggers, and don't invoke your superior morality.

In addition, why not slam a large proportion of Romans and Greeks who at one point saw no harm in an older man taking a young boy under his wing and having a little fun besides? Why this emphasis on this one act by this one person which was completely socially acceptable at the time?

If you're gonna judge people in the past by today's standards, at lest be consistent and apply it universally. BTW, it does make some of the people in our own history look like the world's biggest bastards. Making children work in coal mines? How dare they exploit child labour! (Of course, age of consent was 10, so there was probably a lot of child-fucking going on too, even just 150 years ago.)

markdf (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:46 am What have I ever said that isn't idealistic? Like, the idealism of free thought -- that we should reject religion and slap anyone who watch Fox News. Or the idealism of socialism -- that we are inextricably bound together as a society. Or the idealism of personal freedom -- that people should be free to live how they please so long as they don't harm others. Or the idealism of courage -- not going around sniveling about how the terrorists are out to get me. Or the idealism of truth -- accepting reality, no matter how unpleasant, rather than believing a bunch of comforting delusions.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that I don't have any idealism.

Markdf,

This is what I meant by IDEALISM. (http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophys ... ealism.htm)

Idealists are convinced that reality does not exist either without or outside of the mind.

It is apparent from what you say that you have thought some of your beliefs through and that you hold that reality is not necessarily what meets the eye of the observer.

Is this not an accurate observation about you?

Perhaps not, because you said above...

....

markdf (imported) wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:46 am Or the idealism of truth -- accepting reality, no matter how unpleasant, rather than believing a bunch of comforting delusions.

That last quote is not quite Platonic. Are you familiar with the concept of Plato's Cave?

Tell me, is truth and good really independent of the individual mind?

Does reality exist independently of our experience of it?

Perhaps you are a REALIST? Maybe? (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 11674.html)