Im not saying things are moral by nature. Im posing to you a philosophical dilemma that was proposed by plato.
Question is simply this.
Is something moral because God made it so, or is it moral because he saw that it was moral and told us.
If it is moral because God made it so, then moral/immoral is arbitrary.
If it is moral by its nature, then that implies a standard outside of God...
So for those of us who feel we need an ultimate arbitrator to determine right from wrong, doesn't citing god only raise more questions, not less?
If Atheists have difficult questions to answer, then so do the religious.
The question presumes that states of good and bad with things are constant that do not change, that is flawed presumption. Where-as no deep philosophical reasoning is required to prove that human beings are capable of doing good and bad. So things are not in single and constant state, and God likes the tendency of human being to do good than to do bad.
P.S. If you think that Plato didn’t presume things are in constant state of either good or bad then plz do reply, I shall try to answer that too, InshaAllah.
That question actually is to trick people into acceptance of strong determinism so that people can be swayed ( from their belief ) to everything is strongly determined and we are not responsible for our bad deeds. As I already said that human being are capable of doing good and bad, having compatible free will.
So that question can be either based on strong determinism or non-determinism, let see what you choose to base that question.
Not at all ... I 'm just a regular schmo ... Alhumdulillah with lots of confidence in my faith ... If I can't find the solution it says more about me than what I placed my faith in.
to answer the question ... So I pray that I am assisted by God.
I believe that a sense of good and bad is inside each one of us and this is due to the fitra that we dwell in ... Of course the fitra comes from God.
Now there are two universes that this question plays itself out in ... 1) The conceptual or abstract universe and 2) the real manifest universe.
In the abstract universe 1) we subject our act and the act of God to our SENSE of piety thus making it SEEM that piety is universal existing independently from God ...
However, all this time we should also realise that in the real manifest universe 2) our sense of being able to discern anything in an abstract way including our fitra is given to us by God.
so the dilemma reduces down to a simple trick ... In one case we are entertaining the abstract idea of God in the other case we are entertaining abstractly the real interplay of God with His Creation. Since the two universes differ in the scenario then the dilemma itself is merely a delusion .... A delusion of conflation between the workings of the abstract world with the workings of the real manifest world.
God has told us what He likes through the fitra ... Because we use that fitra to tell ourselves that what God likes for us to do, we should consider that to be pious and have the ability to put a label of good on to God too. This ability to reason out logically is part of our Fitra ... So any formula that we suppose and any logical construct that we set up we will never escape the fitra ... But the question tricks us on the surface that it actually achieves that, but it does not. No dilemma. We can merely label things to be good or bad ... What makes them good or bad is determined by God.
Peace psyah bro,
if fitra is there to tell us what is good and what is bad, and what God likes for us to do, then why divine revelations as guidance, through Holy Scripture are revealed to us?
The response that I gave Med911 ... Did it make sense to you? Do you have reservations?
Good response. Its a difficult to respond to however. There is a reason why Euthyphros dilemma has remained relevent for this long, its really a philosophical head scratch- er.
The question presumes that states of good and bad with things are constant that do not change, that is flawed presumption. Where-as no deep philosophical reasoning is required to prove that human beings are capable of doing good and bad. So things are not in single and constant state, and God likes the tendency of human being to do good than to do bad.
P.S. If you think that Plato didn’t presume things are in constant state of either good or bad then plz do reply, I shall try to answer that too, InshaAllah.
Well, he is referring to those things that a consistently good or bad. Like murder when unjustified, or stealing when you have plenty from people who have nothing. Things that are unjustifiable bad. Or things that are generally good, things like compassion for the poor and destitute etc.
med, you believe in determinism or non-determinism?
Havent really pondered it in any great depth. But if you mean, do i believe that actions or events are all per-ordained or pre-determined, I don't think so. If they were, what would be the point of praying for an outcome if it is already determined to occur, one way or the other? Yet that is what Islam, and in fact all religions teach...
The paradox is only apparent ... It is like Xeno's paradox ...the way the scenario is presented seems as if the faster runner will never take over the slower one, but reality says otherwise.
One may apply an iterative understanding to the problem or consider each possible decision to be an alternative universe ... So it shows that each universe is known to God, but the choice of which universe is selected for the experience you are having lies with you, which is still within the realms of Divine knowledge ... But not pre-determination.
In fact the whole argument of dropping our tadbir with Allah (SWT) is that we sail along in accordance to our predestined plans, but along the way we make adjustments by du'a and personal decisions ...
if fitra is there to tell us what is good and what is bad, and what God likes for us to do, then why divine revelations as guidance, through Holy Scripture are revealed to us?
Well the basic Fitra is there for us to check our reasoning against. It is not such a strong sense in us that we can be guided thoroughly by it. However, when we come across any idea be it in scripture of any given faith or through other ideas like scientific discovery we consult the fitra to see if it makes sense. Our fitra for sure tells us that an effect has a cause.
This is the reason why if you get a two year old child and hide behind a screen and throw a ball over the top, the child will walk around the wall to see where the ball came from. Logic is a formula designed to encode some sense of our fitra too. But as you can see logic and common sense are not enough to fathom the truth ... But once given in the form of scripture and prophets then our fitra is essential for making that final step of acceptance through guidance of Allah (SWT) ...
In fact the Ash'ari and Maturidi aqaid differ over the concept of redemption. One belief states that non-Muslims can be forgiven and other beliefs state not. One says prophets/scripture is necessary for guidance and the other says the fitra is enough which is why non-Muslims who have never received the full or prior guidance will still be hell bound.
I consider it that the fitra is through the adl of Allah (SWT) (justice) whereas prophets and scripture is through the fadl of Allah (SWT) (bonus) ... The two ... i.e. fitra and scripture should meet in the middle to enhance the propensity of acceptance.
The paradox is only apparent ... It is like Xeno's paradox ...the way the scenario is presented seems as if the faster runner will never take over the slower one, but reality says otherwise.
One may apply an iterative understanding to the problem or consider each possible decision to be an alternative universe ... So it shows that each universe is known to God, but the choice of which universe is selected for the experience you are having lies with you, which is still within the realms of Divine knowledge ... But not pre-determination.
In fact the whole argument of dropping our tadbir with Allah (SWT) is that we sail along in accordance to our predestined plans, but along the way we make adjustments by du'a and personal decisions ...
So god is aware of any and all possible permutations and outcomes but not specifically which one you or I will choose?
Its an interesting hypothesis, but it raises a lot of questions.
So each decision throws up a whole entire new parallel world, so in fact, there are infinite number of "us" out there some place?
And since there are multiple or even infinite numbers of you, that means, that for any given situation all possible outcomes are not only possible but they do or are occuring somewhere out there...
So god is aware of any and all possible permutations and outcomes but not specifically which one you or I will choose?
Its an interesting hypothesis, but it raises a lot of questions.
So each decision throws up a whole entire new parallel world, so in fact, there are infinite number of "us" out there some place?
And since there are multiple or even infinite numbers of you, that means, that for any given situation all possible outcomes are not only possible but they do or are occuring somewhere out there...
Not the not ... Allah (SWT) is Aware but does not intervene ... Unless He so Wills, it can be affected by our prayer or steps forward towards Him.
Not infinite ... The number choices will be limited, but of course will be a very large number. Also, many paths may coincide too merging the lines of possibility ... For example time of death.
The given examples are merely abstract models that we use to understand the scenario. When I stated iterative I meant it like this ...
Axiom: For God the past, present and future are the same
a) we make decision in transient time
b) Allah Sees that
c) Since the axiom ... Allah Knew that and Will Know that
d) We change our course
e) Allah Sees That ... Which implies He Knew it, which implies He Will Know it
ad infinitum
This would follow the divergent series ... That each time we make a decision in our temporal sphere, the infinite has accounted for it. This way we hold that neither are we influenced in our decisions nor is it unknown that we will make those decisions from an infinite point of view.
Well the basic Fitra is there for us to check our reasoning against. It is not such a strong sense in us that we can be guided thoroughly by it. However, when we come across any idea be it in scripture of any given faith or through other ideas like scientific discovery we consult the fitra to see if it makes sense. Our fitra for sure tells us that an effect has a cause.
This is the reason why if you get a two year old child and hide behind a screen and throw a ball over the top, the child will walk around the wall to see where the ball came from. Logic is a formula designed to encode some sense of our fitra too. But as you can see logic and common sense are not enough to fathom the truth ... But once given in the form of scripture and prophets then our fitra is essential for making that final step of acceptance through guidance of Allah (SWT) ...
In fact the Ash'ari and Maturidi aqaid differ over the concept of redemption. One belief states that non-Muslims can be forgiven and other beliefs state not. One says prophets/scripture is necessary for guidance and the other *says the fitra is enough which is why non-Muslims who have never received the full or prior guidance will still be hell bound. *
I consider it that the fitra is through the adl of Allah (SWT) (justice) whereas prophets and scripture is through the fadl of Allah (SWT) (bonus) ... The two ... i.e. fitra and scripture should meet in the middle to enhance the propensity of acceptance.
The odds are stacked against us ...
So you still think that adl is possible with that not-strong sense as it cannot guide us thoroughly?
And the first bolded part negating the second bolded part.
So you still think that adl is possible with that not-strong sense as it cannot guide us thoroughly?
And the first bolded part negating the second bolded part.
This is a debate for the Maturidi and Ash'ari theologians ... The way I look at it is the fitra is enough to give a us a sense of right and wrong that is shared by all people, but it is not enough to make us Muslim ... Not without guidance ... Because inevitably people ask for evidence. Prophets and scripture are the evidence we have ... And the Qur'an is an ongoing miracle.
well adl might be possible through fitra, but that is not equal to morality. Taking revenge of murder maybe is adl, but it is neither good nor bad.
Some people consider revenge necessary ... for justice ... but what you said is exactly what I am advocating. Without scripture and prophetic guidance we would not know that to forgive is better. There is something to be morally right, but another thing to be morally superior. We know there are grades of goodness as the terms "better" and "worse" are used often in our scriptures. But on the other hand if someone went through life doing things that were neither good nor bad then would Allah (SWT) send them to heaven or to hell or to some other place?
I would still say that fair retaliation - or lets say - compensation is part of the moral framework of humanity. Some consider it immoral to let the criminal get away without penalty. So I think we really need to view this matter with the idea of levels of good rather than just a binary good and bad.
^ I dont know how your argument "Some consider it immoral to let the criminal get away without penalty" is irelevant here. I talked about revenge, you still not getting the point. if i decide to forgive and to take not revenge for someone's wrong action to me, then how it could be immoral?
^ I dont know how your argument "Some consider it immoral to let the criminal get away without penalty" is irelevant here. I talked about revenge, you still not getting the point. if i decide to forgive and to take not revenge for someone's wrong action to me, then how it could be immoral?
If you read what I wrote earlier ... I said forgiveness is more moral than revenge, not immoral. If it is true that justice is moral then it must be true that fair revenge which is "just" must be within the bounds of morality, but not AS moral (or not as good) as forgiveness. My argument is that morality is not a binary thing.
Perhaps you are viewing "the taking of revenge" to be the opposite of "forgiveness" - thereby concluding that if the taking of revenge is moral then it means that forgiveness is immoral. This is a mistake ... The correct way to understand the issue of revenge is "choice" ...
1) Given the choice for revenge and it not being taken is called - forgiveness
2) Given the choice for revenge and taking it is called - revenge
3) Not given the choice for revenge and being unable to take it or forgive it by choice - opposite of forgiveness
You will agree that number 3 is an injustice ... to take revenge is actually a person being given the right to exercise his choice - the giving of the right - is what is moral about revenge and forgiveness - forgiveness however is another good upon that good.
Nowhere i said that, taking revenge is opposite of forgiveness, this your own choice of assumption, you can read my post #74 where i said it is neither good nor bad. Furthermore justice is not measured in terms of good and bad, rather right and wrong.
For your point that morality should be measured in levels is more of religious part, and falls under religious framework. With philosophical point of view, acts are , moral, normal(neutral), and immoral. And it should not hurt anyone, if it does then do tell me how it is wrong.
Nowhere i said that, taking revenge is opposite of forgiveness, this your own choice of assumption, you can read my post #74 where i said it is neither good nor bad. Furthermore justice is not measured in terms of good and bad, rather right and wrong.
For your point that morality should be measured in levels is more of religious part, and falls under religious framework. With philosophical point of view, acts are , moral, normal(neutral), and immoral. And it should not hurt anyone, if it does then do tell me how it is wrong.
Peace ajazali
You are not wrong ... I'm merely saying that conforming to our fitra is a basic moral, whereas I think you are saying that fitra takes us to what is normal ... And it is neither moral nor immoral.
So I guess we are cutting our cake at different points ... I feel that conforming to our fitra is a moral thing to be doing, perhaps that is not enough to be a moral act though ... I am drawing a distinction here from the term nature ... Our nature is a combination of the fitra and the nufs. Our nufs draws us towards our animal instinct and the fitra is what we use to elevate towards the angelic. But we would not know about the nufs/fitra if we were in a state that is absent of religion and scripture. Sorry I keep bouncing around ...
From a philosophical point of view ... there are various opinions of where to draw the line of moral and immoral and whether some people will or will not consider certain acts as neutral ... Some people consider it ok to commit suicide for example ... Others advocate it for people who are not contributing to society. The use of random examples will create more confusion.
Look for specific examples in the Sunnah for where the term fitra has been used and decide whether they are neutral acts or whether they are moral. It's not for me to say either way ...
Basic moral , less moral, more moral, whereas you give no reasoning why you say justice is moral or less moral? With this approach we left with two things, moral(less/more) and immoral(less/more), that means we deal everything in terms of moral and immoral only. Talking about justice(adl), if the victim decides to take revenge, dont you think that it looks strange if we say a decision is Moral instead of Right and/or Immoral instead of Wrong?
Where does need of comparison like less moral or more moral come from?
If fitra is morale(less or more) then you are approving others' point that everthing is morale so no need of divine and existence of God, hence false.
Now tell me, justice is moral, premise is true or false, if true how?
I accept your point that fitra is adl, now you must stay on your stance that fitra is adl then adl is less or more moral, it is neither moral nor immoral, except Allah may bestow anyone with moral nature.
For your example of sucide it is again irrelevent, you again missing what morality means, that is something you do good to others expecting no reward. Sucide, philosophically, has nothing to do with others.
I am not shoving my idea down your throat, could rather continue defending my point.