I have an opinion therefore I matter!

One can assert that harm inflicted by one to himself or someone else is rather subjective because it may be permissible in one society and an atrocity in another. For example, eating human flesh is permissible among cannibals (cannibalism), whereas, it is considered to inhumane in most parts of the world. Similarly, the death penalty is abolished in Europe; however, it is rampant in Middle East and United States of America (Capital Punishment. Both schools of thought present facts in their favor. Let us look into these arguments. One can say that who has deliberately taken away someone’s life should be hanged and this argument does make sense, this however, reflects an antediluvian approach. Civilized nations have realized that one cannot bring back the dead by killing another so why not to abolish this practice. Now, both moral schools have their roots grounded in culture and history. It is hard to choose one over the other which necessitates that moral facts are based on the cultural biases and subjective thinking.Similarly, the issues of suicide and euthanasia have its proponents and opponents. Idealism and Liberalism supports suicide and argues that one has a right to his/her life. Proponents of Idealism are Nietzsche, Goethe and Schopenhauer . Schopenhauer affirmed: "They tell us that suicide the greatest piece of cowardice, that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person"( The World as Will and Representation. Liberalism reiterates the same point of view that every person has a right to his/her life and no one can impose ideas on another. Eminent proponent of this school of thought is Thomas  Szasz . On the contrary, suicide has been criticized by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Camus, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke and J.S. Mill. Kant denies the right to commit suicide on the grounds that man is merely means to achieve and end and he should contemplate whether his idea of suicide is consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. (Philosophical views of suicide). Camus rejected the idea of suicide. He thought that ‘suicide was an escape from the absurdity of reality into illusion, religion or death’ (L'Etranger). Keeping these schools of thought in mind one a can assert that moral judgments are merely reflection of cultural whims and biasesThe nature of moral judgments and how we apprehend them is debatable. However, how one feels about a moral judgment depends majorly on its being right, wrong, painful or pleasurable. For, instance, morality does not allow committing suicide in few cultures whereas, in others, it is laudable act; as it is for example in Japan. Similarly, masochism is considered morally wrong in most part of the world but in some parts of the world that is considered the greatest form of religiosity. For instance, in Iran most of the Muslims are Shia and they flagellate themselves because it is a religious ritual. In case of stealing, fictional character Robin Hood, the legendary thief, is probably the most celebrate hero of all times. Merely because he distributes his booty to poor, should he be exonerated from any kind of moral judgment?

So, this can be concluded that there is a commonly held belief that one’s feeling about a moral judgment is highly subjective, relative to the culture and bias. The universality of any moral judgment is not possible because people hold different views on how they see and feel the world. Thus, infliction of pain to one’s self or others may be acceptable to some but not all.  Another problem is how cultural biases are interpreted. It is generallly believed that punishment of ethical issues such as lying, stealing and murder is justified. But, can they be logically justified? According to Social Hedonism and Utilitarianism ‘being moral is not merely being prudent but rather a willingness to sacrifice one’s own best interest for the welfare of another’ ( Social Hedonism and Utilitarianism which implies that if some good comes out of lying then it is permissible. For instance, if a murderer comes to my house and wants to kill my friend, who happens to stay over, I can lie that he is not present, have I then committed an unethical act? Am I a candidate for punishment? Similarly, if I kill someone while saving a lot of people, that murder can be justified. In fact, I will be a hero in the eyes of society. The proponents of Social Hedonism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This theory is based on pain and pleasure that can be gained from doing a certain action. It proposes that any action that yields pleasure should be done and is justified. According to Bentham ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.’ This suggests that we do all those actions which are pleasurable’. (Jeremy Bentham) So the premise that stealing, lying and murder, that no matter which culture we are from, are wrong is not true because a person may perform these acts but these actions can be justified on the bases of how much good other people are able to get out of them. The theory also suggests the idea of pain and pleasure. So, if a person is able to get pleasure out of a certain act it is an end in itself. Thus it can be justified logically, contrary to the common sense belief that stealing, lying and murder is ethically wrong.  Let us review another moral judgment issue homosexuality. Homophobia is analogous to racial discrimination which denies the intrinsic rights to homosexuals it is a moral judgment upon acts engaged in by choice.  Most of the cultures and mainstream religions do not allow homosexuality. The Jewish and Christian Bible describes it as ‘abomination’(Bible). The Qur'an describes it as transgression and lewdness (Qur'an). But is this moral judgment merely a reflection of cultural and religious bias or does it hold its ground logically? According to Social Hedonism; an action is right if and only if it results in the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. If a person is able to receive great pleasure from being a homosexual then the moral judgment on homosexuality falls flat on its. The second part of the argument suggests that great a number of people should be able to get pleasure of from it, denying someone the basic right to be who they are is rather an abomination in itself. However, if someone is granted that right he will be happy and that happiness will have a trickledown effect and that will make everyone else around him/her happy, thus resulting in a greater pleasure for everyone. As a matter of fact, Jeremy Banthem in his revolutionary essay ‘Paederasty’ advocated homosexuality on the same grounds.(Paederasty)If this argument was to be tested on Utilitarian grounds one would arrive at the same conclusion. This approach suggests that ‘an action is right if and only if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number’ According to this view, an act is only right if a great number of people is are able to receive its benefit. This view also re-establishes that a great population of closeted and condemned homosexuals will be able to receive benefit, if they are allowed to be who they are. Merely a feeling or divine decree of ‘abomination’ is not sufficient to pass a moral judgment. (You here introduce another moral theory, i.e., divine command, what is the logical structure of this theory, who defends it, and on the basis of what argumentation?) Thus, from the comparison of different schools of thought one can conclude that most of our moral judgments reflect mere feelings and cultural attitudes. They are not substantiated on the logical grounds i.e. stealing, lying, murder and sexual orientation cannot have universal moral judgments. One cannot dub these acts out rightly wrong. Instead their context has to be viewed. Moreover, there has to be criteria for evaluation of right and wrong, even if it is divine wisdom it has to be tested on some rational grounds, because at the end of the day we are rational beings and like to think that we can choose our own destination and a way of living. 

Freedom of will

Just as existence of God and the life hereafter are the postulates of morality, so freedom of will too has basic importance for moral actions. In order to declare a person responsible for his actions and in order to make him deserving of the reward or punishment for his doings, it’s essential that he should be believed to be free in the performance if his actions. Moral freedom means that a person has two or more alternatives before him out of which he is capable of making, and in most of the cases does make a choice of the alternatives and then behaves accordingly. If a person has only one way of action before him or out of the many ways he is compelled to adopt only one particular way, we can’t pass a moral judgment on that person or his behavior. Actions of animals are not moral actions on that account. Similarly, the actions performed by an insane person or by one who is completely swayed by some emotions are not moral actions. Only those actions are declared to be morally good or bad which have been consciously, deliberately and freely chosen. There are three kinds of determinism based on free-will. But, I want to specially write about the controversy between the Jabarites and qadarites.
The sect of jabarites in Muslim theology specially was the upholders of this kind of determinism; it asserts that God is powerful over everything; they argued that nothing can happen against His will. Not even a leaf can move without His decree. The sovereignty of the God extends to he actions of men as it extends to everything else. On the contrary, qadarites or free-willists uphold freedom of man and justifiability of the moral judgment. Both sides have strong arguments in their favor, Thus I fail to pass a judgment of my own :P. I know we love to pass a moral judgment on people; it’s become a kind of habit as a nation. But, try exercising your freedom of will and look things from others’ point of view. (Excerpts from elements of philosophy)

Reminiscing

I was amazed in my Islamic Education's class , when I came to know that students did not know much about the legend of Islam and his philosophical contributions, so here is a breif introduction about of Imam Ghazali. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali is one of the great Muslim jurist, theologian and mystics of the Muslim world. He lived in the 12th Century. He was a polymath who wrote on a wide range of topics including jurisprudence, theology, mysticism and philosophy. In the west he is famous for his devastating attack on philosophy specifically metaphysics in his tahfut al-falasifa, Incoherence of the philosophers. He is also the author of the famed ihya' `ulum al-din (Revival of Religious Sciences) a book that combined mysticism with practical everyday life actions by emphasizing the underlying psychology of daily life practices and its ramification on life in this world and the hereafter. AKA: al-Ghazzali , Algazel (450-505 AH/1058-1111 AD)