Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread rules update:

From this point if you're going to make a connection between Islam and the crime rate, you need to demonstrate causation in your post. If you do not, I'm going to infract you for the inherent racism in the position you're taking.

 

[Muddiemoose]

They're 'bad' to you.

Acts which we have prohibited in our culture have not necessarily been prohibited in other societies

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations. Rather than being an exception it has been the rule. And seen as normal and acceptable in some societies.

Child sacrifice was practised widely from the Aztec, Incas, Mayas, Moche to various Middle Eastern cultures such as Moabites, Ammonites, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Minoans and pre-Islamic Arabia. Even the Israelites performed child sacrifice at various times in their history. In the Book of Judges, Jephthah sacrifices his daughter for example.

Bestiality was accepted in some North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures.

Incest has not always been taboo in many countries and cultures such as in Bali and ancient Egypt it was widely accepted amongst all classes. Greek law allowed marriage between a brother and sister if they had different mothers. Even in the Bible the patriarch Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah and there are other examples there as well. Incestuous marriages were also seen in the royal houses of ancient Japan, Korea, Incan Peru, ancient Hawaii and, at times, Central Africa, Mexico, and Thailand. In the Netherlands marrying one's nephew or niece is legal.

Certain types of homicide in some cultures were seen as lawful and justified. Murdering helots in ancient Sparta was not regarded as a crime but a valuable deed for the good of the state. The Thuggee cult was devoted to Kali the goddess of death and destruction and according to some estimates the Thuggees murdered 1 million people between 1740 and 1840. The Aztecs believed that without regular offerings of blood the sun god Huitzilopochtil would withdraw his support for them and destroy the world as they knew it. In the 1487 re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlian, at least 10,000 and possibly up to 80,000 people were sacrificed.

Ancient Greek pedastry was a socially acknowledged romantic and sexual relationship between an adult male and a younger male usually in his teens, that might be called pedophilia today.

In Roman culture, during wartime, the violent use of war captives for sex was not considered criminal rape.

Slaves in ancient Rome, irrsespective of age, were regarded as property under Roman law an owner could use them for sex or hire them out to service other people. Slavery in many cultures was seen as normal and by the laws set in place by those cultures, people engaged in the slave trade were undertaking a legal action, approved by the society they lived in. Many ancient monuments still standing were built in whole or in part by slave labour. Should we tear them down because of thart? Should we erase any reference to those rulers that have locations or monuments named after them. Should we change the names of the months of July and August, because Julius Caesar and Augustus oversaw a society that was heavily based on the slave trade?

Many sexual activities seen as taboo in western cultures were viewed as appropriate by the native culture in Polynesia, including what we would call underage sex.

Cannibalism has been well documented around the world. In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism has been a cultural norm. They include cultures in Fiji to the Amazon Basin to the Congo to the Maoris of New Zealand. Ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased in some societies for example, has been seen as a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.

By the modern western moral code that you have been raised in, I'm sure you think that most, if not all of these are 'bad'. However in those above mentioned cultures, these were seen as normal, even desirable, practices.

Yup!
Even in our own modern society the definitions of good or bad actions are completely subjective based on our own personal biases

& why some of us enjoy discussing & debating ethics or doing thought experiments

 

[sr36]

I don't believe it was normal at all in most places and times. Even ancient people knew it was harmful.

If morality is purely cultural then it's basically meaninglessness to ever criticize anyone. It just says that a person is going against whatever random cultural norms they have, which doesn't make them actually bad. Like Netanyahu could nuke Gaza tomorrow and you would have nothing to criticize him about morally except to say your culture disagrees with that decision... which doesn't make it wrong.

Divine or not, I think there are things that are self evidently bad. Killing innocent people for no reason. Consummating marriage of 9 year old. These are obviously bad even if you don't believe in god.

In many ways, the UN and Geneva conventions are an attempt to set a globally agreed upon rules based moral code for how nations and cultures should interact. Take the God aspect out and it's the Qur'an for nations and much of it is quite Islamic, as it was a religion that delved into the nitty gritty of appropriate behaviour in warfare. Netanyahu is most likely breaking the moral code of our times. A moral code, like older moral codes, set up to help people flourish. Things that encourage or stop people from flourishing is my view of good and evil and those things are contextual, debatable and change over time.

 

[Jazny]

They're 'bad' to you.

I appreciate your post but won't respond to it all because it makes the same general point, that different cultures have different moral beliefs. I agree, but I think we can judge which cultures have better moral standards. I think even you would agree with this... for example:

Is slavery bad to you? Do you condemn slavery? If you condemn it, are you right in condemning it? Or are you only condemning it for arbitrary cultural reasons? In Tasmania, many of us want to rename the Batman bridge because he was an awful human being we shouldn't be celebrating, he murdered aboriginals. Obviously most people thought differently in his time. Do you agree or do you think we are just being ahistorical and irrational?

 

[Jazny]

Netanyahu is most likely breaking the moral code of our times.

But is that even bad? Seems like it doesn't really matter by the standards you guys are setting. Like if it was really the moral code in Muhammad's time to consummate marriage with a 9 year old, and he was like "no, that's a bad and harmful practice. I will wait until she is an appropriate age" he would have broke the moral code of his times, but I think that would have been good.

 

[Muddiemoose]

But is that even bad? Seems like it doesn't really matter by the standards you guys are setting. Like if it was really the moral code in Muhammad's time to consummate marriage with a 9 year old, and he was like "no, that's a bad and harmful practice. I will wait until she is an appropriate age" he would have broke the moral code of his times, but I think that would have been good.

Both are bad based on our modern sensibility’s, but one of these examples you have provided are being conducted now & even that being good or bad will change on the individual

But as a modern society we have implemented bodies and laws hold each other accountable and use things like universal human rights to help guide us in making decisions and judging actions accordingly

 

[Jazny]

Both are bad based on our modern sensibility’s

I feel like this is a way of dodging the question. Are our modern moral sensibilities more morally correct than older sensibilities that allowed for things like slavery, child abuse, and murdering people based on racism? It is an easy answer for me: Yes. And I condemn all those things! They are immoral.

But I think intelligent people sometimes fall into a trap of denying anything that is hard to rationalise. Like I was told in psychology, many academics deny consciousness is a real thing, because it is impossible to explain using our scientific understanding... but consciousness is so obviously real that I think it is the ONLY thing we can be sure exists. I think the same thing is happening in morality, it is impossible to explain, so people just find it easier to deny and say it's just cultural and subjective, but nobody actually believes it. Nobody lives their life thinking morality isn't real.

 

[Roylion]

I appreciate your post but won't respond to it all because it makes the same general point, that different cultures have different moral beliefs. I agree, but I think we can judge which cultures have better moral standards.

'Better' moral standards is also subjective.

My point is that there is no objective 'rule'. Individual societies may objectify morality as they see it within their own society. But that in itself does not make morality objective.

There are no absolute moral rules to be followed. 'Morality' is a subjective perception of what right and wrong is or good and bad behaviour should be. Morality may come from our beliefs in religion, culture, philosophy, politics, education, laws, or other areas of life.

What we consider 'moral' and 'immoral' may change with time and depend on where we live.

Is slavery bad to you? Do you condemn slavery?

Slavery has spanned many cultures, nationalities and religions for at least the last 11,000 years and in many places became an established institution that was practiced among all classes of people. In some places slaves even owned their own slaves. both amongst indigenous populations and settler populations Slavery might consist of a number of forms such as chattel slavery, indenture, forced labour amongst others.

Naturally this is at odds with the moral principle that all human beings have inalienable rights (which were derived from the concept of 'natural rights') to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. John Locke in the 17th century identified those inalienable rights as being "life, liberty, and estate".

So if you believe that every human has inalienable natural rights (along the lines of what John Locke identified as natural lights) then you would condemn slavery as a violation of 'liberty'.

If you condemn it, are you right in condemning it? Or are you only condemning it for arbitrary cultural reasons?

See above. What is 'right' and 'wrong' is subjective. That's the basis of the many of the culture wars.

In Tasmania, many of us want to rename the Batman bridge because he was an awful human being we shouldn't be celebrating, he murdered aboriginals. Obviously most people thought differently in his time.

Of course they did. A society's values change over time.

 

[Muddiemoose]

I feel like this is a way of dodging the question. Are our modern moral sensibilities more morally correct than older sensibilities that allowed for things like slavery, child abuse, and murdering people based on racism? It is an easy answer for me: Yes. And I condemn all those things! They are immoral.

But I think intelligent people sometimes fall into a trap of denying anything that is hard to rationalise. Like I was told in psychology, many academics deny consciousness is a real thing, because it is impossible to explain using our scientific understanding... but consciousness is so obviously real that I think it is the ONLY thing we can be sure exists. I think the same thing is happening in morality, it is impossible to explain, so people just find it easier to deny and say it's just cultural and subjective, but nobody actually believes it. Nobody lives their life thinking morality isn't real.

I do think our modern sensibilities are more morally correct but I also understand that when looking back on the actions of people in the past it’s difficult to judge them based on these sensibilities I can also acknowledge that my idea of good or bad is based on my own experience that is unique to me

We can be critical and acknowledge that they may be bad based on our modern sensibilities but to judge someone to be good or bad person purely based on these actions isn’t really fair

Like the Batman example you have earlier I don’t think he was a bad person per sae but he did some terrible things even if he didn’t think they were terrible at the time

As a society we should celebrate or not celebrate these people accordingly

Historically the kinds of actions like killing of indigenous, slave ownership ect were simply ignored, not included or the feelings surrounding these identities by people directly affected by them not considered when discussing them when the decision to name these bridges, parks or build statues where now we are starting to acknowledge both the good & bad

If you want my personal opinion on if Batman bridge should be renamed I think it should be

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Attitudes to women were completely different, even in the recent past. Women were chattels to be owned, used, traded, sold, at will. And still are to a degree in other societies. The women's feelings or whether their suffering was right or wrong were never considered. We can't judge those customs, just feel relieved that we are more enlightened, although not totally.

 

[sr36]

I appreciate your post but won't respond to it all because it makes the same general point, that different cultures have different moral beliefs. I agree, but I think we can judge which cultures have better moral standards. I think even you would agree with this... for example:

That's a really dangerous perspective in the modern world. It's basically cultural supremacy - the precursor of genocide.

However I do agree that different cultures have moral standards more likely to see people flourish in the modern world.

But is that even bad? Seems like it doesn't really matter by the standards you guys are setting. Like if it was really the moral code in Muhammad's time to consummate marriage with a 9 year old, and he was like "no, that's a bad and harmful practice. I will wait until she is an appropriate age" he would have broke the moral code of his times, but I think that would have been good.

Yes of course it's bad.

We're driven by survival of the self, survival of the mob, survival of the species. And the view of the mob is enlarging from small groups to nations to the entire species. And we'll probably shift to survival of life in general and not just our species if environmental groups are correct about where we're heading. And thus our environment destroying cultural practices will be viewed as evil.

In terms of appropriate age to breed, there have been periods in history when it would have risked the family, the mob or even the species to have a cultural practice of waiting 6-10 years after nature has made breeding possible. Would our current perception of appropriate age of consent be morally right if we were stripped back to the species being under threat. and it risked the survival of the species?

Old Abrahamic cultures seemed to believe maximising breeding was a priority. Hence age of consent, viewing homosexuality as abhorrent, etc ... I view them as outdated beliefs that are harmful for individuals and thus bad in the modern world. But if you go by the Torah it was in an era of conquest and genocide, perhaps it was necessary for survival of the mob.

 

[Jazny]

'Better' moral standards is also subjective.

I think they are objectively better and we can feel when we are doing right and wrong. But we will never agree on this point. I believe all humans can feel when we are doing something right or wrong, but many people choose to ignore these bad feelings being immoral temporarily brings wealth, power, or pleasure.

I do think our modern sensibilities are more morally correct but I also understand that when looking back on the actions of people in the past it’s difficult to judge them based on these sensibilities I can also acknowledge that my idea of good or bad is based on my own experience that is unique to me

But if some moral beliefs are truly more morally correct than others, that must mean there is like a standard that exists that is somehow objective, even if we don't fully understand that standard. If it is just subjective, then no version of morality can be more correct than another.

That's a really dangerous perspective in the modern world. It's basically cultural supremacy - the precursor of genocide.

No because I believe genocide is objectively bad. The only reason to kill others is self defense. Self defense can never be murdering random civilians for absolutely no reason. Any culture that justifies genocide is by definition not a supreme culture.

In terms of appropriate age to breed, there have been periods in history when it would have risked the family, the mob or even the species to have a cultural practice of waiting 8 years after nature has made breeding possible.

Nature didn't intend 9 to be breeding. That's why it's dangerous. Maybe 13 and up is possible without endangering the mother, I havent seen the studies on this, but 9 is ridiculous and always has been. Let alone the consent issues!

 

[Roylion]

I think they are objectively better and we can feel when we are doing right and wrong.

That in itself is subjective.

I believe all humans can feel when we are doing something right or wrong, but many people choose to ignore these bad feelings being immoral temporarily brings wealth, power, or pleasure.

I've given plenty of examples of human practices that you would feel are 'wrong', but the people of those societies would say they were 'right'.

But if some moral beliefs are truly more morally correct than others,

Moral beliefs are subjective.

that must mean there is like a standard that exists that is somehow objective, even if we don't fully understand that standard. If it is just subjective, then no version of morality can be more correct than another.

No version of morality is more 'correct' than the other.

No because I believe genocide is objectively bad.

Even the Bible

The only reason to kill others is self defense. Self defense can never be murdering random civilians for absolutely no reason.

Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person, killing of enemy combatants or threats to the states (such as the helots), capital punishment, euthanasia, killing in defense of one's property, honor killings, mercy killings, killing to prevent specific sexual crimes are all examples where the perpetrators have justified killing others.

Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard a British anthropolgist wrote in 1956 about the Neur from Sudan

"Homicide is not forbidden, and Nuer do not think it wrong to kill a man in fair fight. On the contrary, a man who slays another in combat is admired for his courage and skill."

Georg Oesterdiekhoff, a sociologist, wrote in support of Evans-Pritchard.

"This statement is true for most African tribes, for pre-modern Europeans, for Indigenous Australians, and for Native Americans, according to ethnographic reports from all over the world. ... Homicides rise to incredible numbers among headhunter cultures such as the Papua When a boy is born, the father has to kill a man. He needs a name for his child and can receive it only by a man, he himself has murdered. When a man wants to marry, he must kill a man. When a man dies, his family again has to kill a man."

Any culture that justifies genocide is by definition not a supreme culture.

All sort of cultures have undertaken and justified genocide (under the modern definition of 'genocide'). They include the Romans (Carthage, the Jews, Gaulish tribes), ancient China, the Sassanids of Persia, the Catholic Church (Cathars), Mongols, the Spanish and many others.

 

[Jazny]

That in itself is subjective.

Like I said, we won't agree. I believe there is a objective morality. I believe almost all humans will feel they are doing something wrong if they rape or murder. Some do it anyway. Some try and justify these things in order to wish away their feelings.

All sort of cultures have undertaken and justified genocide (under the modern definition of 'genocide'). They include the Romans (Carthage, the Jews, Gaulish tribes), ancient China, the Sassanids of Persia, the Catholic Church (Cathars), Mongols, the Spanish and many others.

And I would use none of them as an example of a "supreme culture".

I know horrific things have been done in the past, are being done now, and will be done in the future. I just think we can judge them for being horrific. It is like how art is subjective, and there is no real way we know of to explain why the Mona Lisa is better than some random graffiti that someone took 5 seconds to spray paint on the side of a wall. But we all just know it is. It can't be rationalised. It just is and we know it when we see it.

 

[sr36]

Nature didn't intend 9 to be breeding. That's why it's dangerous. Maybe 13 and up is possible without endangering the mother, I havent seen the studies on this, but 9 is ridiculous and always has been. Let alone the consent issues!.

Nature allows breeding from when it's possible, which is puberty for humans. Jewish and thus probably early Christian mandates of 12 and a half coincide with the average age of puberty. Other cultures did it at the physical sign of puberty - menstruation. You're right that 9 would have been uncommon, as puberty usually happens later, but it can happen at 9. And frankly I don't view these stories as accurate facts. With fertility being highly prized in a lot of old cultures, it wouldn't surprise me if early puberty was seen as a virtue and thus 9 was a bit of understatement to praise the fertility of his virgin bride.

 

[Roylion]

Like I said, we won't agree. I believe there is a objective morality. I believe almost all humans will feel they are doing something wrong if they rape or murder.

Who defines whether it's 'right' or 'wrong'? Killing and rape was seen as acceptable in some societies.

And I would use none of them as an example of a "supreme culture".

Even the term 'supreme culture' is subjective.

I know horrific things have been done in the past, are being done now, and will be done in the future. I just think we can judge them for being horrific.

Horrific to some.

 

[Jazny]

Nature allows breeding from when it's possible, which is puberty for humans. Jewish and thus probably early Christian mandates of 12 and a half coincide with the average age of puberty. Other cultures did it at the physical sign of puberty - menstruation. You're right that 9 would have been uncommon, as puberty usually happens later, but it can happen at 9.

This is wrong. It's only technically possible at such a young age, it is not ideal by a long stretch. The 10-15 age group has the worst pregnancy outcome of any other age group according to research. Can we name a single person in history whose mother was pregnant at 9? This was not common at all. Any parents who cared about their daughter would not allow this!

"...the Greek gynaecologist Soranus, who practiced in Rome at the beginning of the second century AD: in his treatise on female pathology, he states that the woman's normal period of fertility was between 15 and 40 years of age. In the laws on marriage promulgated by the emperor Augustus (reigned 27 BC – AD 14), the period in which a woman was expected to have children was fixed between 20 and 50 years of age.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16781

It seems in Rome around 0-100 AD, 15+ was the norm for first pregnancy.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That in itself is subjective.


I've given plenty of examples of human practices that you would feel are 'wrong', but the people of those societies would say they were 'right'.


Moral beliefs are subjective.


No version of morality is more 'correct' than the other.


Even the Bible

Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person, killing of enemy combatants or threats to the states (such as the helots), capital punishment, euthanasia, killing in defense of one's property, honor killings, mercy killings, killing to prevent specific sexual crimes are all examples where the perpetrators have justified killing others.

Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard a British anthropolgist wrote in 1956 about the Neur from Sudan

"Homicide is not forbidden, and Nuer do not think it wrong to kill a man in fair fight. On the contrary, a man who slays another in combat is admired for his courage and skill."

Georg Oesterdiekhoff, a sociologist, wrote in support of Evans-Pritchard.

"This statement is true for most African tribes, for pre-modern Europeans, for Indigenous Australians, and for Native Americans, according to ethnographic reports from all over the world. ... Homicides rise to incredible numbers among headhunter cultures such as the Papua When a boy is born, the father has to kill a man. He needs a name for his child and can receive it only by a man, he himself has murdered. When a man wants to marry, he must kill a man. When a man dies, his family again has to kill a man."




All sort of cultures have undertaken and justified genocide (under the modern definition of 'genocide'). They include the Romans (Carthage, the Jews, Gaulish tribes), ancient China, the Sassanids of Persia, the Catholic Church (Cathars), Mongols, the Spanish and many others.

Just on that headhunter culture in a closed system they would self extinct (kill more males than would get born) I suppose you get to a point where there is one man and hundreds of women…

 

[mcnulty]

Some of these horrific acts were not only accepted practice they were actually ordained by gods. Moses and his merry band of war criminals were under explicit instructions to carry out their atrocities against the Midianites. In fact according to the Bible god was angry the didn’t go far enough initially. Some religious people are still rationalising this today.

 

[sr36]

This is wrong. It's only technically possible at such a young age, it is not ideal by a long stretch. The 10-15 age group has the worst pregnancy outcome of any other age group according to research. Can we name a single person in history whose mother was pregnant at 9? This was not common at all. Any parents who cared about their daughter would not allow this!

"...the Greek gynaecologist Soranus, who practiced in Rome at the beginning of the second century AD: in his treatise on female pathology, he states that the woman's normal period of fertility was between 15 and 40 years of age. In the laws on marriage promulgated by the emperor Augustus (reigned 27 BC – AD 14), the period in which a woman was expected to have children was fixed between 20 and 50 years of age.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16781

It seems in Rome around 0-100 AD, 15+ was the norm for first pregnancy.

It goes without saying that mature men having sex with recently pubescent girls is one of the most heinous moral sins of our age.

But there's very little doubt that it was accepted cultural practice in the world's that Muhammad and Jesus were born into.

So I'll leave it to Jesus to have the final word about this common cultural practice of his time that is now a horrible sin. What did he have to say about it?

Nothing!

It was a cultural practice that wasn't questioned - not even by the prophets.

 

[Jazny]

It goes without saying that mature men having sex with recently pubescent girls is one of the most heinous moral sins of our age.

Sounds like cultural supremacy! Careful, if you will be endorsing genocide next.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it is absolutely a true statement and the fact you say it sarcastically is just weird to me. Do you even think Jeffry Epstein was a bad guy? How can you say he was bad if you don't believe that what he did can be judged as immoral? Or if you only think that what he did was immoral by some cultures, but would be moral by others, and you can't say which culture is right?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It goes without saying that mature men having sex with recently pubescent girls is one of the most heinous moral sins of our age.

But there's very little doubt that it was accepted cultural practice in the world's that Muhammad and Jesus were born into.

So I'll leave it to Jesus to have the final word about this common cultural practice of his time that is now a horrible sin. What did he have to say about it?

Nothing!

It was a cultural practice that wasn't questioned - not even by the prophets.

The women themselves had very little control over their lives. Women/girls had no worth except to procreate and were frequently used by their fathers/brothers/male relatives (owners) in forging advantageous alliances through marriage. The relationships you describe were fully and unquestioningly accepted by everyone, for many thousands of years.

The world has been a patriarchy since time began.

 

[mcnulty]

So I'll leave it to Jesus to have the final word about this common cultural practice of his time that is now a horrible sin. What did he have to say about it?

A very good point and one perhaps our Christian friends can answer. If there are objective moral truths regarding the 12yo marriages, why did we not hear this from Jesus?

And why indeed was his church prepared to perpetuate the same practices?

 

[sr36]

Sounds like cultural supremacy! Careful, if you will be endorsing genocide next.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it is absolutely a true statement and the fact you say it sarcastically is just weird to me. Do you even think Jeffry Epstein was a bad guy? How can you say he was bad if you don't believe that what he did can be judged as immoral? Or if you only think that what he did was immoral by some cultures, but would be moral by others, and you can't say which culture is right?

I'm not being sarcastic and I'm not saying there is no such thing as morality. I'm saying morality changes due to beliefs and knowledge of the time and due to what is in the best interests of a society within their historical context.

In a nutshell, I think morality is the struggle to not put your self interests and desires above the interests of others or the interests of society. Paedophilia in the modern world is clearly selfish self interest with no regard for the interest of others. However at various times in the history of mankind where population growth was believed to be or was necessary for survival, maximising fertile years may have been in society's best interest or at the least believed to be in society's best interest.

Like I said previously. I believe in morality. I just don't believe it is divine or timeless. I think it's contextual.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'm not being sarcastic and I'm not saying there is no such thing as morality. I'm saying morality changes due to beliefs and knowledge of the time and due to what is in the best interests of a society within their historical context.

In a nutshell, I think morality is the struggle to not put your self interests and desires above the interests of others or the interests of society. Paedophilia in the modern world is clearly selfish self interest with no regard for the interest of others. However at various times in the history of mankind where population growth was believed to be or was necessary for survival, maximising fertile years may have been in society's best interest or at the least believed to be in society's best interest.

Like I said previously. I believe in morality. I just don't believe it is divine or timeless. I think it's contextual.

Adoption of democracy and the rule of law introduced social restraints on all sorts of behaviour that wasn’t already proscribed by religion. Humans aren’t naturally “moral” and left to do as they like without accepted or imposed community rules, will follow their selfish urges.

 

[Jazny]

In a nutshell, I think morality is the struggle to not put your self interests and desires above the interests of others or the interests of society. Paedophilia in the modern world is clearly selfish self interest with no regard for the interest of others. However at various times in the history of mankind where population growth was believed to be or was necessary for survival, maximising fertile years may have been in society's best interest or at the least believed to be in society's best interest.

It's highly likely the mother or baby or both would die in pregnancy or have other serious complications at that age, especially in that era, so it's the worst possible way to "maximise fertile years". Most societies would know this, actually all would. It is one of the many reasons why it is completely immoral to do what Muhammad was alleged by some to have done. It wasn't common in any era.

There is no way to justify it in any era for any reason. Why can't we just accept that? Are any of you seriously telling me if you lived in 500AD, you would think it was fine to allow your 9 year old daughter to consummate marriage with a 50 year old? Please...

I honestly believe if it was Jesus and not Muhammad that did this, many of you guys would not shut up about it and use it to attack Christianity all day. Many of you seemed to delight in the unsupported idea Mary was only 12-14 or the fake story about Jesus having a underage wife.