[sunniskeptic]

assalamu alaykum!

This is the question first asked by Sokrates to Euthyphro (as found in Plato) and which is modified form may be phrased as "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

I think to answer this question can help us both understand our ow faith better and perhaps help us to diagnose the underlying causes for our problems in the world.
I have my own views on this but I would be interested in hearing the opinion of others too. I hope we can have a good discussion.

[Tahir-Riaz]

sunniskeptic, on 20 December 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

assalamu alaykum!

This is the question first asked by Sokrates to Euthyphro (as found in Plato) and which is modified form may be phrased as "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

I think to answer this question can help us both understand our ow faith better and perhaps help us to diagnose the underlying causes for our problems in the world.
I have my own views on this but I would be interested in hearing the opinion of others too. I hope we can have a good discussion.

I did have a clear view on this until I saw this clip.

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

What a tough question to answer.

I would say that the only thing this question does not take into consideration is the fluidity of morality if derived through own judgement. The Atheist must recognise that morality is an ever changing phenomena; premarital relations are morally acceptable now but were not so years ago. Constant changes will mean evolution of moral acts based on whim. Surely at some point we will lose control of what constitutes moral acts.

Secondly, God has created good and evil and then created humans not in terms of latter creation but in terms of ownership of good and bad. For example God creates us and makes good actions harmonious to our conscience. He then asks us to perform goodness which is naturally intrinsic to our being to safeguard aganist rebellion. There is no use for God asking us to be kind if we do not have the capacity for it.

So it is not the matter of God forbidding killing because it is already bad but rather because it is already bad and we recognise this humanly, it is easier to act on it.

[badman]

Salams,

A few weeks ago Sikander B posted this same thread but to no avail.

Morallity (try to simplify the question to get a discussion going) good video (Tahir) Good reply FTR (mind boggling question Sikander B and SunniSkeptic)


Example - a non-muslim family who profess no faith, one member of that family embraces Islam, all other family members are quite happy him/her being a practising muslim and leave him to practice his/her faith openly inside their home.

They do not have a problem with the faith but do not accept it. They see the changes in this individuals character as that of being extremely good. How should that non muslim family be seen as? Non-muslims not accepting Islam but letting a family member practice it freely. Morally they are very good that which is commanded by God (enjoining good and forbidding evil) yet the are not enjoining what God has asked them to do. What happens next?

(FTR Wrote - Constant changes will mean evolution of moral acts based on whim. Surely at some point we will lose control of what constitutes moral acts.) - ive seen people take their clothes off in the middle of a street and the people who were standing around were laughing and clapping just like those people in the above video!

shall we go in to the summer riots in the uk???

[Brother_MGS]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

What a tough question to answer.

I would say that the only thing this question does not take into consideration is the fluidity of morality if derived through own judgement. The Atheist must recognise that morality is an ever changing phenomena; premarital relations are morally acceptable now but were not so years ago. Constant changes will mean evolution of moral acts based on whim. Surely at some point we will lose control of what constitutes moral acts.

Secondly, God has created good and evil and then created humans not in terms of latter creation but in terms of ownership of good and bad. For example God creates us and makes good actions harmonious to our conscience. He then asks us to perform goodness which is naturally intrinsic to our being to safeguard aganist rebellion. There is no use for God asking us to be kind if we do not have the capacity for it.

So it is not the matter of God forbidding killing because it is already bad but rather because it is already bad and we recognise this humanly, it is easier to act on it.

Very interesting point, but then again the athiest can argue that the ever evolving change of morality is keeping up with the times that we are living in. As you have mentioned premarital relations are the norm now, its morally acceptable for people to go and find their own partners, maybe having various different ones along the way until the 'right' one is found. Thats why promised, arranged and forced marriages are now looked down upon as ancient practises. How do we as Muslims now argue that premarital relationships are morally wrong and defend the arranged and forced marriage culture that is still present in our communities?

A muslim friend recently said to me that Islam and the values, customs, lifestyles etc. of the west aren't compatible. The more you think about it, it does begin to make sense. Not because of the laws of Islam but because alot of western values in todays world go against Islam.

[The-Mughal-Sister]

The question here is what are morals? What is right and wrong?

How would we know what is right or wrong if we didn’t have laws of the land, or divine guidance, now let’s take out the divine guidance and base this on atheists, how would they know what is right or wrong?

Your conscience, how you feel deep inside, your spiritual sense, your inner being, when you commit an act which is against nature, against humanity and against yourself, your inner self is perturbed, you feel it deep down and your conscience bears witness that if it is wrong or right, you can feel the pain your soul suffers and hence feel to put the act right or wrong.
One doesn’t essentially need guidance from man in order to behave certain, you’d know from your inner spiritual self IF it is awake, if you are in touch with your soul’s satisfaction and peace, but in reality who is awake in their spiritual, moral self?

But in these modern times the question of morality has evaporated into the polluted air, moral, ethics. Man has lost their self, lost righteousness, to suit their political agenda and expect everyone else to follow suit, how can you expect that?

This is how I see it.

[The-Mughal-Sister]

Now bringing me onto the second part, which is the answer to your question:

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

This goes back to your inner spiritual moral self, where your conscience takes root from, your soul which goes over the atheists notion, because for them there is nothing before this life nothing after, so their left in limbo. For people of the faith, the giver of soul is God:

"Every soul shall have taste of death.....”
29:57

Here God mentions soul, not people, beings because our body is mere but a carrier or our soul which will return to the giver, God, Allah swt. When we do something which is morally wrong we are being unjust to our souls, this is mentioned time and time again, we are being unjust to our souls, making is dismal or euphoric.

So if God will judge our actions, judge our deeds, judge what we have done right or wrong, judge essentially our souls, isn’t it therefore more plausible that God knows what is morally right or wrong and thus awakened it in our souls, which makes us good or bad humans?

Conscience is the soft whispers of God in man.

This post has been edited by The-Mughal-Sister: 20 December 2011 - 05:11 PM

[sunniskeptic]

Some nice replies but in my opinion too wishy washy and not really addressing the question. Probably my fault for making the question too vague.
I guess if we take concrete examples then we can progress better perhaps.

Three theoretical examples:

Example 1: Let's take killing as an example. Most people would agree that killing an innocent person is wrong; they would agree further that
killing children is even more reprehensible. For a father to kill his child would be even more horrid. Imagine a scenario where a man tries to kill his own child by cutting his throat with a knife. The knife is too blunt and wont cut so the father angrily chucks that one way and gets another one. That too wont do. Finally, by the third attempt
the neighbours hear the struggle of the boy and call the police. Just as the man is about to cut his son's throat the police burst in through the door and stop him. In court the father pleads that he was doing it on the orders of his God who spoke to him. What is your natural reaction to such a story? Be honest. If you were in a jury would you convict that man of attempted murder?

Example 2:
An adult woman and man who both love each other have sex willingly in the living room. Their apartment looks onto their neighbours and they are seen doing the act by their neighbours who are next door. The neighbours tell of them and they are arrested. The judge orders that a hole in the ground be dug so that they are neck deep in it with only their heads showing. The judge then orders the public to stone them to death by throwing medium sized rocks at their exposed heads until they die. Don;t use big rocks as you want to prolong their agony. The video of the punishment is made available on youtube for all to see as a deterrent. How many of you would feel comfortable watching that and feel it was a moral and ethical thing to do as you watched the man and woman sobbing and screaming for mercy as the rocks bashed their heads in till their brains hung out? Please be honest.

Example 3:
A group of Pakistani soldiers attack an Indian army post in another war and defeat it. In the post are also living the wives and children of the Indian soldiers (who are all Hindus). The leader of the soldiers orders his men to take any of the women they like and that they can rape them as they see fit as these women are now their property. All boys over the age of twelve are killed. The younger children are herded
onto SUVs and taken to the market to be sold for money as slaves. This incident is reported by one soldier who did not obey orders to the press later on. What would your reaction be? Would you applaud the actions or find them abhorrent?


@Tahir: I once upon a time too would have answered this question easily but not any more! I am inclined towards what Dawkins' said in the
clip.

[sunniskeptic]

@ badman,

good points. About the London Riots, I broadly agree with the view of David Starkey although the ConDem government and the economic downturn are also
to blame.

@ FTR, agreed but is it a bad thing for morals and ethics to continuously evolve? If you say no to this then only a few generations ago slavery was accepted as perfectly
normal and in fact if you are going to be honest and not an apologist then you still have to believe in slavery as it is explcitly allowed in classical islam and fiqh books
had whole sections dedicated to the rights and conditions of buying and selling slaves. Ditto with stoning adulterers to death etc. etc.

I would say it is a good thing that morality is not absolute.

[sunniskeptic]

Interesting that still no one has answered the three scenarios I gave in my earlier post above...