The question was, was it morally right, not whether or not some people accepted it.
And what of the child, do they not get a say in the moral rightness of that which they have been the subject.
As I stated before, that the victim is the tripping stone to reletivism/ nihilism.
For relativism to have any grounding, there must be uninamity of the evil action being done, being right. Which means the victim has to concur their own mutilation is morally right to do. Unanimity is require to validate the purity of this ethos.
Relativism is dead and has been until Dawkins unwittingly brought it back up and presented it to a soft minded audience.
It is immoral to us based on what we know. Burning children alive in past cultures was seen as moral. Again, ignoring this does not change that our moral beliefs are not rigid. Or do you believe our ancestors a step before us on the evolution timeline thought murder was bad like we do now?
One distinguishing fact that almost always goes unnoticed is the belief that because 1 nation/people group/religion/etc engages in a (questionably) immoral act, that it was universally accepted at that time.
Just as sacrificing people to gods was accepted in the Aztec culture, does NOT mean it was a universally accepted maxim.
Similarly to today, where sharia law maybe accepted in one nation does NOT mean it is universally accepted.
I do know it isn’t, because i was born in a culture and time where I can know it isn’t. Again failing to accept different cultures at different levels of advancement have different morals based on their social, cultural, economic conditions is ignoring history.
Mary married Joseph at 12. Was that moral? Because it was considered natural and moral to marry 12 year olds all throughout history, in fact it was legal in the US what, like…Oh it still is
In the state of Virginia, it is officially still legal for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be brought to a courthouse with evidence of a pregnancy and wed, a practice that has come under increased scrutiny thanks to the Virginia Senator Jill Vogel R-Fauquier.
In Virginia itself, according to state health statistics, more than 4,500 minors were married between 2000 and 2013, including about 220 who were 15 or younger.
And a separate Statista chart plotting the minimum legal age of marriage for girls worldwide reveals that the US is one of the lowest on record, with several places - including Massachusetts - allowing girls as young as 12 to be wed with the consent of a judge.
It is matched only by Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where age of consent for marriage ranges between nine and 13 years old.
No. Stop right here. Either you know that it isn’t. Or it is. There is literally no way for you to choose any other option, and you still have not. You’re still saying, “It is, except when it isn’t.”
But it either is, or it isn’t.
One more time, can baby rape ever be a moral good. Yes or no? You appear to be saying Yes.
What are you not getting. I can’t view it as moral, no.
So why did everyone alive view marrying twelve year olds as moral for thousands of years and now all the civilised world, except some parts of America where it is still legal, say it is terrible?
What changed? If morality is absolute how the fuck did that happen? The only explanation is a materialist view of history.
Nor does it make it morally right.
Slavery was accepted, you’d have a hard time convincing anyone it’s morally right. And that’s the point, acceptance, people’s opinions do not make something morally right or wrong. I am betting most of the slaves weren’t down with it, considering many took incredible risks to escape it.
Again, the victim, the tripping stone of the Moral Relativist. You cannot ignore the victim.
You’re confusing socially accepted behavior with morality. They are not the same thing. Socially accepted behavior can be either morally right or wrong. That’s why society cannot be the determining factor of morality because society may not give a damn about the victim.
It may not be socially acceptable for 12 year old’s to marry, but that in itself is not morally wrong. The concern, with respect to this law, isn’t age appropriateness of marriage, it’s the high likelihood of rape. Rape being covered up by the guise of marriage by peoples appealing to culture or religion as an excuse for it.
Is it immoral for 12 year old’s to marry? Only if it’s coerced, forced and a rape cover up is in progress. Otherwise it’s just culturally awkward and likely foolish.
