Oh, 1, 2, 3 isn't on the usual modus ponens form, please take your syllogism-hat off.

What does it mean to pass moral judgement on the Koran? That kind of judgment is for human actions, not books, right?

I do not see how books full of contradictions could be subject of a logical analysis.The result of reciprocity simply has to be that the assumption it was the ultimate codex would lead to the conclusion, that it is not.
Hence (2) does not seem to hold.

What does it mean to pass moral judgement on the Koran? That kind of judgment is for human actions, not books, right? — frank

Would it mean to identify stories/examples/lessons and commandments in the book which seem morally questionable?

It's junk. I'll rephrase a bit to show how I understand it:

The Thing = some specific external source of a particular sort of judgment

(1) If you rely on The Thing for a particular sort of judgment, then you don't make such judgments for yourself.

No problem. Seems straightforward.

(2) If you don't rely on The Thing for a particular sort of judgment, then The Thing is not relied on by you for such judgments.

Seriously, (2) isn't saying anything at all.

Therfore,
(3) Either you don't make a certain kind of judgment for yourself, or The Thing is not relied on by you for such judgments.

Well, yeah. This is actually an exclusive or, but it's all so weak, I think we can cheat a little and recast it as a conditional:

Therfore,
(3') If you make a certain kind of judgment for yourself, then The Thing is not relied on by you for such judgments.

Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, it's just the contrapositive of (1).

It's junk. It takes something true pretty much by definition and tendentiously rephrases it a couple times and then presents it again so it looks like a startling conclusion. It's junk.

if you're incapable of passing moral judgment on the Quran, then you're not an autonomous moral agent

An "autonomous moral agent" is someone who takes responsibility for their own actions. Passing moral judgement on anyone or anything is not the action of an autonomous moral agent. In a sense, it's the opposite. It's an attempt to control the actions of others.

Given that, the rest of your argument is falls apart.

1. if you're incapable of passing moral judgment on the Quran, then you're not an autonomous moral agent
2. if you can pass moral judgment on the Quran, then the Quran cannot be the definition of morals
3. therefore, you're not an autonomous moral agent, or the Quran cannot be the definition of morals — jorndoe

Proposition 2 is not necessarily true. What if your (autonomous moral agent) moral judgments are exactly congruent (letter for letter, word for word) with the Quran? I believe this - two people arriving at the same conclusion - happens quite often, not as often as we'd like but it does happen.

Nevertheless, there's something, how shall I put it?, unfree, restrictive, coercive, forced about convergence of all kinds, including, in our case, the concordance of moral truths. It's as if we don't have a choice. Remember that freedom can be viewed as an ability to diverge given a decision node consisting of multiple choices.

, the 10 commandments in the Bible may be the best known example (in the West).
Most people can evaluate those.
I suppose, in a way, the Adam + Eve + Serpent + Fruit and Abraham + Isaac + Sacrifice stories could suggest abandonment of autonomous moral agency (to adherents), though it depends on how they're read — ambiguities, another can of worms.


(y)
By the way, there's more to say about (programmable) rule-following, eisegesis, and such, which seems relevant to divine command theory and theological voluntarism.


, well, yes, contradictions are explosive, if that's what you mean.
All bets are off, a whole other can of worms. :meh:


, you mean it's all redundant confuzzlement, that could just be put into one statement and be done with? :)
But, hey, arguments are so en vogue these days.


, I suppose there are semantics involved here.
We might say that, in principle, autonomous moral agency is a prerequisite for (would-be) autonomous actors.
In analogy, we don't allow hazards to roam free in kindergartens either.



Maybe autonomous moral agency can be thought of as a kind of know-how?
Except, under normal circumstances, we tend to assume other people can figure out the right thing to do by default, absent whatever concerns of course.
(By the way, it's not so much my argument, as it just seems intuitive to me.)


, right, yes, coincidental congruence, ...
A bit technical, though. :)
But 2 could fail on that.

We might say that, in principle, autonomous moral agency is a prerequisite for (would-be) autonomous actors. — jorndoe

It comes down to this - Judging the morality of other people or beliefs is not an autonomous moral action. Morals have to do with how you live your life, not how other people live theirs.

Hmm... , if someone were to say
"you must severely spank your kids every day, or they'll turn into immoral losers, and, besides, they probably did something wrong anyway"
then I'm thinking most would say that's not the right thing to do, i.e. passing judgment, a bad starting point.
I don't think you'll find that in the Quran (or the Bible, Vedas, Avesta), it's just an example.

if someone were to say
"you must severely spank your kids every day, or they'll turn into immoral losers, and, besides, they probably did something wrong anyway"
then I'm thinking most would say that's not the right thing to do, i.e. passing judgment, a bad starting point. — jorndoe

I believe we should protect vulnerable people. Child abuse hurts children. I have a moral obligation to try to stop child abuse if I can. If I gather together with like-minded people, we can pass laws that protect children. That is not a negative judgement on immoral behavior, it is positive acceptance of a moral obligation.

It comes down to this - Judging the morality of other people or beliefs is not an autonomous moral action. Morals have to do with how you live your life, not how other people live theirs. — T Clark

My issue with this is that people with religious morality often seek to change laws and behaviour of others - presumably to please God. We don't just have to consider the Taliban or the Wahhabi Saudis in this enterprise, there are Western Christians working to turn the clock back on science education, gay rights, women's rights, capital punishment, euthanasia - what have you.

My issue with this is that people with religious morality often seek to change laws and behaviour of others - presumably to please God. We don't just have to consider the Taliban or the Wahhabi Saudis in this enterprise, there are Western Christians working to turn the clock back on science education, gay rights, women's rights, capital punishment, euthanasia - what have you. — Tom Storm

I think you and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about what moral agency means to me. It has to do with my obligation to behave in moral way. By "moral" I mean consistent with my values. There is no room for moral judgement of others in this.

You're talking how some people judge and try to control other's behavior based on their moral understanding, either religious or not.

:up:

right, yes, coincidental congruence, ...
A bit technical, though. :)
But 2 could fail on that. — jorndoe

Coincidence?! :chin:

That messes things up doesn't it? No good reason why we all arrived at the same conclusion in re moral codes - it was just a fluke!

Just a fluke? :point: Synchronicity

In Eastern philosophy causality incorporates chance.

There are no accidents. — Master Oogway