Western moral philosophy's area of meta-ethics
tries to answer the question of how can we decide if something is moral or
not. Passing moral judgement like "lying is bad only if you get
caught" is not as universally accepted as empirical judgement like "the
earth moves around the sun". If there is no universal consensus as to what
is moral and what is immoral how can our global society make moral progress
which is vital for humanity?
Western philosophy does not have the answer. As the
Scottish philosopher, David Hume rightly observed the realm of philosophy is
limited to the cause and effect of phenomenon experienced in the world of the
philosopher. They are incapable of penetrating the infinite worlds beyond as
that is where the realm of philosophy ends. The extreme corruption in the
church doctrine of the Middle Ages which they take to be Christianity through
whose lens they judge all religions, resulted in Western philosophers to reject
divine teachings as a source of practical thought in the Renaissance. Thus,
without rational religious principles to guide them, today's Western
Philosopher is utterly confused about such issues as morality.
Western philosophers categorize moral judgement in
three main categories: objective moral judgement, relative moral judgement and
emotive moral judgement. People who believe that moral judgement is objective
believe that it is as true as empirical judgement, e.g. "genocide is
bad" as true universally as "I am less than 6 ft. tall". Such
people fail to explain the magnitude of differences in moral opinion that
exists in humanity. People who believe that moral judgement is relative believe
that a judgement is dependent on the individual, their background and their
culture. It might be true in one society and false in another society, e.g.
"bank interest is harmful to global society". People who believe that
moral judgement is emotive do not reason and think about morality but rather
depend on their emotions to decide if something is morally good or bad, e.g. "polygamy
is bad". Meta-ethics is a very active field of research in western
philosophy university departments. They are trying to come up with a unified
theory that tries to tie together all these three positions on moral judgement.
Without a true religion, they find it excessively elusive.
Islam has the solution to this as well as perhaps
most modern philosophical conundrums because the sources of research are not
only the observable world (as is for philosophy) but also the unseen. A
believer is engrossed in research by observing the causes and effects of this
world (i.e. to make empirical judgments) in the light of divine revelations in
the Quran and what was revealed to us from the unseen by Prophet Muhammad
(SWAS) (i.e.to make moral judgments).
The Western mind, automatically relates this to
Christian moral philosophy and rejects Islam's explanation to the meta-ethics
conundrum as as simplistic and insufficient as Christianity's religious
morality. Whereas the moral principles are developed by Christian philosophers
after the formation of Church doctrine, Islamic moral principles are directly from
the divine - the words of Allah, either in the Quran or as reported in
authentic ahadith. The authenticity of both these sources are empirically well
established - the Quranic scriptures being studied to be unchanged almost from
the century of its revelation and the hadith having a meticulously scientific
methodology of classifying the authenticity of hadith.
The Muslim philosopher works with these divine
building blocks using the Prophetic methodology rather than man made constructs
from the church clergy. These moral principles are part of a holistic reality,
violating which disturbs the whole fabric of the universe. Thus, empirical
principles and moral principles are both universal principles from the one
divine source - Allah. Just as not watering plants caused them to whiter
and die, lying causes us to become self-deluded. Just as empirically stating
"grass is green" is not always universally true, saying "lying
is bad" is not always true. Islamic morality is as sophisticated as the
depth of its sources. These divine words are pregnant with deep meaning, fine
detail and a multitude of implications. There are so many exceptions to the
general principles e.g. in the case of lying, a Muslim is allowed to lie to
make their spouse happy, they can lie in times of war and lie to reconcile
between people.
Islamic philosophy is not really philosophy. It is
a way of thinking based on the natural universal principles with all their
sophistication that befits modelling the natural reality of existence. Since
the complexity of the reality being thought about is so profound, human
language is insufficient to express its universal principles – whether empirical
or moral. Thus, literal divine words which have been completely preserved since
their revelation are gifted to humanity to live a meaningful and moral life in
complete harmony with the rest of the natural universe.
Moral principles are universal principles for all
humanity and for all times. There is tremendous detail and sophistication to
them which allows their relativistic application in different societies and
times. Since they are based on natural principles, they directly affect the
human psyche resulting in an emotive response. Thus, Islamic paradigm of thought
completely and comprehensively solves Western philosophy’s meta-ethics
conundrum which is plaguing humanity.
The lack of the basis of morality in our modern
global society means that humanity is blindly groping for a means to create a
global ethical society. The moral values of humanity are at a all time low and worsening. The
meta-ethics of Islam completely satisfies this need. Humanity can progress in
morality as far as it has progressed empirically, if it adopts Islamic ethics.
