[Opislossy]

Getting down to the very basics, the bare bones of it. Every behaviour, word, letter that is externalised by billions of people on earth has morality linked to it.

My question is Does objective morality need Allah? Can we have an objective paradigm of morality without Allah? Does it make sense to have an objective morality without Allah? Or is every law, judgement, moral, value, belief, idea, behaviour based on subjective morality? If this is the case, are we not a lost cause?

Subjective morality is based on culture and values of the place at that time. Subjective morality changes with time and place. A thing that maybe be morally OK in the UK, may not be OK in China, A thing that may be morally OK in Pakistan, may not be in Nigeria. A thing that may be morally OK in the 12th century, may not be OK in the 21st century.

Every person's morals are based on the place they live and the time they live in:


For the Aztec's "sacrificing" human beings (with feelings and who felt pain, had families) for their gods was perfectly morally right .

For the Mongols ransacking and committing genocide on Baghdad and the Muslims was morally right .

For the European Imperialists invading and taking over the lands of the Americas was morally right

For Hitler and Nazi Germany killing the Jews and other minorities and believing in Aryan race supremacy was morally right

For Winston Churchill calling Palestinian dogs and the indigenous Australian people as an inferior race to the Imperialists was morally right .

For the Israelis killing Palestinans and "defending" against Hamas is morally right.

For NATO destroying and killing the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Libyans and the Pakistanis is morally right .


What is morally right and wrong?

In the West walking around in a bikini top and a skirt is morally right and fine to do, in places like India walking around in a T-shirt and jeans is morally right and fine to do, in Muslim countries walking around with hijab is morally right and the other two are not.

What is "right"? Is there even a "right"? Is everything "right"? Is everything "wrong"? What is our morality based on?


Is the only objective morality based on evolution? Murder is wrong, because it puts the existence of our species at risk, so we all know murder is "wrong"? Maybe.

However in that case,

Why is a group of thugs entering a house, raping a child, the mother, killing the father and stealing everything wrong? If our objective morality is based purely on evolution and we are purely animals who share a common ancestor with the modern ape then how is this "wrong"? If it is wrong then why? Who said it is wrong?

If the only objective morality is based on evolution then the above example is fine to do based on survival and fulfilling our basic desires. And this is obviously "wrong" to everyone. So do we only have subjective morality?

No human can judge, impose law, impose behaviours, impose culture on others as "right" or "wrong". For example marijuana is illegal in the UK and therefore "wrong", but legal in the Netherlands and therefore "not wrong", but the law that it is illegal in the UK is based on the government's own subjective morality. Why do they have the right to impose laws on other human beings? .

Is it not biased to impose laws on others based on subjective morality? Who is right and wrong? The UK or the Netherlands?


The solution?

Only an external source can impose judgement on humans. A non-human can impose judgement on the humans. This will stop it being based on subjective morality of the humans. A lion imposing judgement on humans is objective morality, it is a external source of judgement and no place or value of the humans can affect it, it is the same for all! Whether you live in China in the 8th century or the UK in the 21st century.


So it must be external and this external source of judgement can be Allah and this is objective morality.

This morality problem DOES NOT prove the existence of God, but it appears there is a NEED of God to exist.


Salam.

[rengerts]

the classic question of freedom of speech. the west is trying to export a unified version labelled as the Human rights charter. it is utterly flawed and will lead mankind to destruction im not kidding. i have yet to see a proper Islamic refutation of it. the capable people are either lazy or busy in mundane topics.
you should give it a try.

[kilibry]

Secularists claim that morality changes in time and place and there are no fixed morals. This is why their universal human rights are a sham, ratified by no body. If 1000 people vote in a room to make some laws, those laws only apply to those 1000 people...they cannot force anyone else to accept their laws. They talk as if their laws are universal and people are 'forced' to accept this as real.

[pKgGpUlF]

Morality is based on one basic principle:

Do unto others as you want done unto to you.

Also for elaboration look into something called prisoners dilemma.

Salam

Saqqib

[kilibry]

I am not sure if this is true, some cultures were cannibalistic (they ate other humans) and everyone in the society agreed that they could be the next meal...so we might say using this principle that it was 'moral' and we have no right to judge it otherwise.

I have heard there are 3 basic principles which lead to human advancement and freedom.

1) Harm no one or their property (principle of non violence or coercion all individuals own only themselves and not others)

2) Encroach on no one or their property (related to the first)

3) Honour all contracts and do everything you have agreed to do or pay a fine

Morality is based on one basic principle:

Do unto others as you want done unto to you.

Also for elaboration look into something called prisoners dilemma.

Salam

Saqqib

[pKgGpUlF]

I am not sure if this is true, some cultures were cannibalistic (they ate other humans) and everyone in the society agreed that they could be the next meal...so we might say using this principle that it was 'moral' and we have no right to judge it otherwise.

Please read my one principle again brother, what you described above follows this law, the people eating knew they could be eaten, and they were ok with that.

Stealing is wrong, but if you and I agree that we can take each others property without asking, is that stil wrong? One good real life example would be say student accommodation.

Also if you look into cannibalism, people normally ate their enemies or enemy/other tribes, rather than their own relatives etc...

Salam Saqqib

[GinaGomesz]

Morality comes from knowledge about what is right and what is wrong.
And as Imam Shafi'i said: Ilm is what Allah and his Rasool said, The rest is whispering of the shaytaan.

May Allah Ta'ala guide us in the right path. ameen.

[BarBoss]

Getting down to the very basics, the bare bones of it. Every behaviour, word, letter that is externalised by billions of people on earth has morality linked to it.

My question is Does objective morality need Allah? Can we have an objective paradigm of morality without Allah? Does it make sense to have an objective morality without Allah? Or is every law, judgement, moral, value, belief, idea, behaviour based on subjective morality? If this is the case, are we not a lost cause?

Subjective morality is based on culture and values of the place at that time. Subjective morality changes with time and place. A thing that maybe be morally OK in the UK, may not be OK in China, A thing that may be morally OK in Pakistan, may not be in Nigeria. A thing that may be morally OK in the 12th century, may not be OK in the 21st century.

Every person's morals are based on the place they live and the time they live in:


For the Aztec's "sacrificing" human beings (with feelings and who felt pain, had families) for their gods was perfectly morally right .

For the Mongols ransacking and committing genocide on Baghdad and the Muslims was morally right .

For the European Imperialists invading and taking over the lands of the Americas was morally right

For Hitler and Nazi Germany killing the Jews and other minorities and believing in Aryan race supremacy was morally right

For Winston Churchill calling Palestinian dogs and the indigenous Australian people as an inferior race to the Imperialists was morally right .

For the Israelis killing Palestinans and "defending" against Hamas is morally right.

For NATO destroying and killing the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Libyans and the Pakistanis is morally right .


What is morally right and wrong?

In the West walking around in a bikini top and a skirt is morally right and fine to do, in places like India walking around in a T-shirt and jeans is morally right and fine to do, in Muslim countries walking around with hijab is morally right and the other two are not.

What is "right"? Is there even a "right"? Is everything "right"? Is everything "wrong"? What is our morality based on?


Is the only objective morality based on evolution? Murder is wrong, because it puts the existence of our species at risk, so we all know murder is "wrong"? Maybe.

However in that case,

Why is a group of thugs entering a house, raping a child, the mother, killing the father and stealing everything wrong? If our objective morality is based purely on evolution and we are purely animals who share a common ancestor with the modern ape then how is this "wrong"? If it is wrong then why? Who said it is wrong?

If the only objective morality is based on evolution then the above example is fine to do based on survival and fulfilling our basic desires. And this is obviously "wrong" to everyone. So do we only have subjective morality?

No human can judge, impose law, impose behaviours, impose culture on others as "right" or "wrong". For example marijuana is illegal in the UK and therefore "wrong", but legal in the Netherlands and therefore "not wrong", but the law that it is illegal in the UK is based on the government's own subjective morality. Why do they have the right to impose laws on other human beings? .

Is it not biased to impose laws on others based on subjective morality? Who is right and wrong? The UK or the Netherlands?


The solution?

Only an external source can impose judgement on humans. A non-human can impose judgement on the humans. This will stop it being based on subjective morality of the humans. A lion imposing judgement on humans is objective morality, it is a external source of judgement and no place or value of the humans can affect it, it is the same for all! Whether you live in China in the 8th century or the UK in the 21st century.


So it must be external and this external source of judgement can be Allah and this is objective morality.

This morality problem DOES NOT prove the existence of God, but it appears there is a NEED of God to exist.


Salam.

There is no objective morality without any reference to the transcendent. Good loses all meaning without reference to God. It becomes as in the west, where good just means 'what i like' and evil is 'what I don't like'.

The ulema have said actions are morally neutral, they only become good or bad with reference to Allah's commands.

You seem to be thinking that moral relativism is correct. It isn't. Plato spent a lot of effort refuting it, 2500 years ago.

The fact is, people do think x is right and y is wrong, but they are wrong to think that unless is accords with allah's commands. Simple.

[redDoodia]

One of the tenets of European Enlightenment, the movement that dumped the west into second phase of Dark Ages, is that certain things are good in themselves.

You get the hint - morality is good in itself. You do not need nobody to make it good.

Perhaps it answers your query.

[WeestDype]

One of the tenets of European Enlightenment, the movement that dumped the west into second phase of Dark Ages, is that certain things are good in themselves.

You get the hint - morality is good in itself. You do not need nobody to make it good.

Perhaps it answers your query.

But the problem here is that everyone has different idea's of what is good and what is bad. Some may say (as the kuffar do) that drinking alcohol is good and others (such as the Muslims) say drinking it is bad. So morality is subjective when it just depends on a particular persons whims but it is objective when their is Creator Who gives us the criterion between right and wrong (Furqaan)

[BarBoss]

One of the tenets of European Enlightenment, the movement that dumped the west into second phase of Dark Ages, is that certain things are good in themselves.

You get the hint - morality is good in itself. You do not need nobody to make it good.

Perhaps it answers your query.

They don't seem to realise it's circular reasoning.

"Hurting people is immoral, why? Because it's wrong to hurt people."

[redDoodia]

Exactly brother.
But we are going beyond the purview of the OP.

[Opislossy]

There is no objective morality without any reference to the transcendent. Good loses all meaning without reference to God. It becomes as in the west, where good just means 'what i like' and evil is 'what I don't like'.

The ulema have said actions are morally neutral, they only become good or bad with reference to Allah's commands.

You seem to be thinking that moral relativism is correct. It isn't. Plato spent a lot of effort refuting it, 2500 years ago.

The fact is, people do think x is right and y is wrong, but they are wrong to think that unless is accords with allah's commands. Simple.

That was my point, the question I posed was does objective morality even make sense without Allah? If it does not then is Allah a NEED for there to be objective morality. And if Allah is a need for objective morality then without Allah there cannot be objective morality. And if all there is, is subjective morality then what me and you think is wrong will change in 1000 years.

[Opislossy]

But the problem here is that everyone has different idea's of what is good and what is bad. Some may say (as the kuffar do) that drinking alcohol is good and others (such as the Muslims) say drinking it is bad. So morality is subjective when it just depends on a particular persons whims but it is objective when their is Creator Who gives us the criterion between right and wrong (Furqaan)

Exactly, that is the point just like I gave the example with marijuana If there is NO CREATOR then no one can impose a law on someone basing it on subjective morality. So all the governments are senseless in that they are imposing laws using subjective morality based on place and time.

Homosexuality was a medical disorder in the 19th century and changed to "sexual identify confusion" by the 20th century and here we are in the 21st century and homosexuality is now seen as "normal" and in many places even a legal marriage partnership. It is because these terms for homosexuality changed with time and place. Objective morality keeps homosexuality as the same whatever place, whatever time.

That was my point, if there is no objective morality, then right and wrong will always change with time and place and this to me is senseless. And does not allow for any law or judgement to work.

[pKgGpUlF]

But the problem here is that everyone has different idea's of what is good and what is bad. Some may say (as the kuffar do) that drinking alcohol is good and others (such as the Muslims) say drinking it is bad. So morality is subjective when it just depends on a particular persons whims but it is objective when their is Creator Who gives us the criterion between right and wrong (Furqaan)

i quote the above but this is a general reply to most of the posts below not just to tis one,

I think some people are getting confused here, the western kuffar allow alcohol NOT because they say it is good rather its because they don't think it's wrong. However for those that know or live in the west, drinking and driving (drinking under influence in USA i think)is one of the biggest taboos. how do you think most of out Muslim brethren make their living in the west (taxi)? Also of issues of note that are looked down are alcoholics, binge drinking etc...

Also there are many amongst the Kuffar in India that strongly look down on drinking alcohol I.e. the stict Hindus.

For those that are saying morality comes from Quran/Islam etc....so where do the non-Muslims get their morality from? They probably haven't even heard one verse of the Quran let alone the whole of it.

They simple answer again is that, the one who made us, made us with a simple rule inside us. The one I stated below, all morality is based on that. Please read further on Konrad Lorenz and his goslings.

Also this topic on morality is distinct from the imposition of this onto other people, for example if I think that it is wrong for men to wear pink, I won't wear pink but can I or am I allowed to force my opinion on ALL the other men out there?

Salam

Saqqib

[rengerts]

Also if you look into cannibalism, people normally ate their enemies or enemy/other tribes, rather than their own relatives etc...

aoa,
that is actually not correct.

[kilibry]

I was told by my non Muslim European lecturer at university that some cannibals created a game in which individuals participated knowing that they could become the next meal based on the outcome of the game. My non Muslim lecturer admired this society saying even their violence had a reason and laws governing it, in contrast to the senseless violence found in British cities on a Saturday night in a city town centre.

Please read my one principle again brother, what you described above follows this law, the people eating knew they could be eaten, and they were ok with that.

Stealing is wrong, but if you and I agree that we can take each others property without asking, is that stil wrong? One good real life example would be say student accommodation.

Also if you look into cannibalism, people normally ate their enemies or enemy/other tribes, rather than their own relatives etc...

Salam Saqqib

[rengerts]

I was told by my non Muslim European lecturer at university that some cannibals created a game in which individuals participated knowing that they could become the next meal based on the outcome of the game. My non Muslim lecturer admired this society saying even their violence had a reason and laws governing it, in contrast to the senseless violence found in British cities on a Saturday night in a city town centre.

lol and i suppose russian roulette is also sophisticated as it will probably teach you a lot about probability : p

[pKgGpUlF]

aoa,
that is actually not correct.

I was speaking in a general sense about killing and then eating rather than just eating, which you seem to be interjecting.

Even you or anyone else has to admit that cannibalism is halal if that is your only source of food. (cannibalism isn't killing and eating, rather just eating). so immoral acts in one situation become moral in other situations.

There is this event where I ink it was an Argentinian sports team who's plane crashed in the Andes and people only survived because they cannibalised their dead team mates. No one in the Kuffar west criticised them, and I dont think anyone who comes to know of this story would criticise them. So where does this universal morality come from?

Remember that one principle I stated earlier?

Salam

Saqqib

[Maypeevophy]

i quote the above but this is a general reply to most of the posts below not just to tis one,

I think some people are getting confused here, the western kuffar allow alcohol NOT because they say it is good rather its because they don't think it's wrong. However for those that know or live in the west, drinking and driving (drinking under influence in USA i think)is one of the biggest taboos. how do you think most of out Muslim brethren make their living in the west (taxi)? Also of issues of note that are looked down are alcoholics, binge drinking etc...

Also there are many amongst the Kuffar in India that strongly look down on drinking alcohol I.e. the stict Hindus.

For those that are saying morality comes from Quran/Islam etc....so where do the non-Muslims get their morality from? They probably haven't even heard one verse of the Quran let alone the whole of it.

They simple answer again is that, the one who made us, made us with a simple rule inside us. The one I stated below, all morality is based on that. Please read further on Konrad Lorenz and his goslings.

Also this topic on morality is distinct from the imposition of this onto other people, for example if I think that it is wrong for men to wear pink, I won't wear pink but can I or am I allowed to force my opinion on ALL the other men out there?

Salam

Saqqib

we do know that there were 313 Rasools sent down to humankind (plus with more or less about 124,000 Prophets). Morality has to start somewehere as it has to have something to be compared against as a benchmark. And with all the original messages lost except Islam, all the other morality now is no longer an absolute morality, rather they are a set of relative morality standard (after their modifications) if we compare them against Islam and Quran. And the western morality values are a set of this drifting relative morality standard, that's why we can see some flip-flopping in their values in a very short time span (50 years, for examples).

Allah Knows Best.