Do the moral principles have any real basis and fixed criteria or are they only a cover to conceal the personal and class objectives of some groups and individuals?
Have the rich and powerful classes of society, with a view to exploit the masses, invented and raised such questions as those of patience, contentment, regard for the rights of others, tolerance etc. so that they may utilize the under‑privileged classes for their own ends, compel them to total submission and keep their mouths shut in the name of adherence to moral principles?
Have the under‑privileged classes invented such moral conceptions as love, charity, justice, modesty etc. with the intention of gaining the favor of the ruling classes?Or have the moral principles any real basis and firm infra‑structure?
There is no doubt that some of the moral teachings have been and are still being put to misuse in various ways. Those who are bent on self‑aggrandizement, especially if they have power and influence, do not
hesitate to employ any possible means to achieve their ends. As scientific research, in spite of its firm basis, is used sometimes for the purpose of oppression, tyranny and torturing the working classes, in the same way
moral concepts are also misused. How often freedom is taken away in the name of freedomand injustice is done in the name of justice and equality! Every good and beneficial thing can be put to misuse. Anyhow, there is no
doubt that howsoever the name of justice is misused, it cannot become the same thing as injustice. They will always remain two different things. Similarly, howsoever it is misrepresented, true freedom cannot be
equal to slavery.So it is no wonder if the Islamic teachingshave been exploited for personal or class interest or have been imposed on the under‑privileged classes in a distorted form. That does not mean that
they are spurious or worthless. On the other hand, this position demands a
vigilance on the part of society so that it is not defrauded and values are not misused by the exploiters to serve their own selfish ends.
In fact morals are deeply rooted in human nature. In spite of his animal propensities, man by nature wants to possess such qualities as are in keeping with his human dignity. All the exponents of the moral principles such as the prophets and the philosophers have set them forth only for safeguarding the interests of the entire mankindand not for the benefit of
any particular class and to the detriment of another class.
Those who hold that the moral principles areonly conventional, point to the difference of opinion in regard to them and ask, if these principles had any firm basis, how the views differ about them.In this connection it may be
said that the diversity of views about any point does not prove that it has no firm basis.We see that difference of opinion exists in regard to most of the questions. Views differ even about such questions as the freedom of
will and the universal human rights. Divergent views exist about the nature of life and the nature of existence. In all these cases there has been a difference of opinion over the ages.But does that mean that in all these
cases real infra‑structure does not exist. Even in regard to physical
phenomena and medical questions which are perceptional, observable and
experimentable, wide differences have existed over thousands of years, although physical phenomenaand medical questions are actually
governed by decisive and unalterable principles.Furthermore, the difference
between morals and the rules of conduct should not be over‑looked. Morals are related to the discipline and promotion of a quality of feelings, emotions and tendencies, whereas the rules of conduct are the practical rules of
behavior which are subject to a number of other considerations
and conventions, though of course, sometimes they conform to the moral criteria. For example,
self‑respect, perseverance, boldness, piety and the like are moral qualities.
They were good qualities thousands of years ago and they are still so. On the other hand the conventional rules of eating and wearing
dress are mostly local and relative. They are not directly linked to the spiritual and moral systems.Thus neither the wrong exploitation of
the moral teachings, nor the divergence of opinion in regard to them, can be advanced as an argument to prove that they have no firm basis.
The same is true of the diversity of the traditions and rules of social life existing among various peoples.
Anyhow, though the moral principles are universal and stable, they are more or less flexible.If some such thing is meant by the relativity of morals, it may be said that Islamic moral teachings are also relative.
Anyhow, that does not mean that on principle morals have no firm basis, and that they are merely conventional.Morals have been defined as good thinking, good saying and good doing. Is this definition adequate?
Many acts are moral and desirable from the view‑point of certain schools, but they are immoral and undesirable from that of others.
For example, a moral school recommends submission in the face of force and regards it a moral duty. It says that if anybody slaps you on your right cheek, turn the left one to him. But there is another school which says that if
anybody does you any harm, check him and give him tit for tat. Both the schools regard the action suggested by them as good. In spite of all the divergence of their views, every school calls the attitude or quality
recommended by it as `good saying' or `good doing'. Hence if moral action is
defined by `good doing', that definition will not be self‑explanatory.Sometimes it is said that it is the moral qualities on which
human perfection depends. But still the question remains what constitutes human perfection?Does man gain perfection by acquiring wealth and material comforts? Does he gain perfection by attaining physical power, by acquiring knowledge, by obtaining social position,
by securing personal pleasures or by doing social service?
Or does he gain perfection by having all these things together?
Or does perfection mean something else?
That is why the most important point discussed by ethics is the determination of criteria and the true infra‑structure of morals.
Have the rich and powerful classes of society, with a view to exploit the masses, invented and raised such questions as those of patience, contentment, regard for the rights of others, tolerance etc. so that they may utilize the under‑privileged classes for their own ends, compel them to total submission and keep their mouths shut in the name of adherence to moral principles?
Have the under‑privileged classes invented such moral conceptions as love, charity, justice, modesty etc. with the intention of gaining the favor of the ruling classes?Or have the moral principles any real basis and firm infra‑structure?
There is no doubt that some of the moral teachings have been and are still being put to misuse in various ways. Those who are bent on self‑aggrandizement, especially if they have power and influence, do not
hesitate to employ any possible means to achieve their ends. As scientific research, in spite of its firm basis, is used sometimes for the purpose of oppression, tyranny and torturing the working classes, in the same way
moral concepts are also misused. How often freedom is taken away in the name of freedomand injustice is done in the name of justice and equality! Every good and beneficial thing can be put to misuse. Anyhow, there is no
doubt that howsoever the name of justice is misused, it cannot become the same thing as injustice. They will always remain two different things. Similarly, howsoever it is misrepresented, true freedom cannot be
equal to slavery.So it is no wonder if the Islamic teachingshave been exploited for personal or class interest or have been imposed on the under‑privileged classes in a distorted form. That does not mean that
they are spurious or worthless. On the other hand, this position demands a
vigilance on the part of society so that it is not defrauded and values are not misused by the exploiters to serve their own selfish ends.
In fact morals are deeply rooted in human nature. In spite of his animal propensities, man by nature wants to possess such qualities as are in keeping with his human dignity. All the exponents of the moral principles such as the prophets and the philosophers have set them forth only for safeguarding the interests of the entire mankindand not for the benefit of
any particular class and to the detriment of another class.
Those who hold that the moral principles areonly conventional, point to the difference of opinion in regard to them and ask, if these principles had any firm basis, how the views differ about them.In this connection it may be
said that the diversity of views about any point does not prove that it has no firm basis.We see that difference of opinion exists in regard to most of the questions. Views differ even about such questions as the freedom of
will and the universal human rights. Divergent views exist about the nature of life and the nature of existence. In all these cases there has been a difference of opinion over the ages.But does that mean that in all these
cases real infra‑structure does not exist. Even in regard to physical
phenomena and medical questions which are perceptional, observable and
experimentable, wide differences have existed over thousands of years, although physical phenomenaand medical questions are actually
governed by decisive and unalterable principles.Furthermore, the difference
between morals and the rules of conduct should not be over‑looked. Morals are related to the discipline and promotion of a quality of feelings, emotions and tendencies, whereas the rules of conduct are the practical rules of
behavior which are subject to a number of other considerations
and conventions, though of course, sometimes they conform to the moral criteria. For example,
self‑respect, perseverance, boldness, piety and the like are moral qualities.
They were good qualities thousands of years ago and they are still so. On the other hand the conventional rules of eating and wearing
dress are mostly local and relative. They are not directly linked to the spiritual and moral systems.Thus neither the wrong exploitation of
the moral teachings, nor the divergence of opinion in regard to them, can be advanced as an argument to prove that they have no firm basis.
The same is true of the diversity of the traditions and rules of social life existing among various peoples.
Anyhow, though the moral principles are universal and stable, they are more or less flexible.If some such thing is meant by the relativity of morals, it may be said that Islamic moral teachings are also relative.
Anyhow, that does not mean that on principle morals have no firm basis, and that they are merely conventional.Morals have been defined as good thinking, good saying and good doing. Is this definition adequate?
Many acts are moral and desirable from the view‑point of certain schools, but they are immoral and undesirable from that of others.
For example, a moral school recommends submission in the face of force and regards it a moral duty. It says that if anybody slaps you on your right cheek, turn the left one to him. But there is another school which says that if
anybody does you any harm, check him and give him tit for tat. Both the schools regard the action suggested by them as good. In spite of all the divergence of their views, every school calls the attitude or quality
recommended by it as `good saying' or `good doing'. Hence if moral action is
defined by `good doing', that definition will not be self‑explanatory.Sometimes it is said that it is the moral qualities on which
human perfection depends. But still the question remains what constitutes human perfection?Does man gain perfection by acquiring wealth and material comforts? Does he gain perfection by attaining physical power, by acquiring knowledge, by obtaining social position,
by securing personal pleasures or by doing social service?
Or does he gain perfection by having all these things together?
Or does perfection mean something else?
That is why the most important point discussed by ethics is the determination of criteria and the true infra‑structure of morals.
ليست هناك تعليقات :
إرسال تعليق