Between backing a cause, and being so overly defensive that you 'defend' it even when it's not being attacked but are clearly too blinkered to realise that.
Lovely.
On a side note:
Do you think there are categorical definite moral truths? Such as?
P.s 'Blinkered' = "Having or showing a limited outlook: "a small-minded, blinkered approach".
Comes from I believe "blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restrict the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side." hence a narrow perception.
Comments
If only people wrote simple blogs like me.
That was simple! I even gave definitions :L
So what would you say were if any, categorical definite moral laws?
Would you say "Treat people how you'd wish to be treated" was one?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
Your initial sentence makes no sense to me.
Okay now that Iv quoted it - it makes sense.
Blinkered means to blink in my dictionary.
My answer: The ten commandments.
I thought the fine line was between life and death.
You think those are the categorical moral rules that everyone MUST follow?
Why not the Shariah?
And I've never heard of the fine line between life and death. Only Love and Hate, it's obviously a malleable concept.
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
For me: I started to believe in objective morality but my previous belief system didn't really allow for it. This was one of the main factors that lead me to explore Islam originally.
Then I learnt about moral relativism which I think only can ever apply to small, grey areas;
Some things are always wrong. Throwing innocent Christians to be eaten for the enjoyment of watching crowds is Wrong. As it was 2000 years ago when the Romans did it for sport.
Just because it was culturally acceptable by them does not mean that it was morally justified. Same with the Apartheid in South Africa.
But... Some morals can/do seem to change... Or maybe we are just fooling ourselves & trying to justify our own bad actions??
The Quran presents to me an objective morality, but only in regards to ACTIONS never to PEOPLE themselves.. God Judges us, & The Prophet
advised us to avoid the Major sins, & the Quran says to spend more time focussing on what is clear rather than what is unclear.
I understand this to mean that the objectively Good & Bad deeds are unchanging, & small actions can be subjectively Good or Bad based on our intentions.
Does this make sense?
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Hmm, never thought of that. Can you give an example to make what you're saying clearer? :oops:
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Yep, lots of sense, cheers.
If you had to pinpoint 2 all encompassing moral rules, could you?
Would the 'golden rule' be one?
+ Are you also a Divine Command theorist then as you seem to think morality comes from God?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
Thou shalt not sleep with your neighbours wife.
Pretty universal I would suspect.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What if someone accidentally does because the woman's a bigamist and neither know?
Then two poor guys are without knowing breaking a universal moral law even though they've done nowt wrong?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
Hmm, in the Nayar society theres like one woman who is married to lots of different men in the same community (at the same time). It's a norm for them. When a child is born, one of the husband decides to look after it as their own (well they probably take paternity tests?)
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
I dont think you can use such get out clauses.
Another example - nuking a city and killing all its inhabitants is wrong, but what if you unknowingly press a button that you had no clue would do that?
The act would still be wrong, but the actor may not be blameworthy.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It's a MORAL theory. You can't detach it from agents when morality applies to humans.
I think yours is a retarded categorical imperative anyway. At least make it more general like 'You should not use of that which is not rightfully yours'
also in your formulation, it sounds like women are just robots. And what about surrogate pregnancies? ARGH theres loads against it -_-
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
Im not a fan of the idea of surrogate pregnancies either.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I'm not a fan of you
Does Islam okay surrogate preggies?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
Not according to my understanding, no.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Why is that?
Cos like nowadays you can do it without actually sleeping with someone else
and I thought IVF was allowed under extreme circumstances. Wrong?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
lineage is important to keep public etc and with surrogate pregnancies etc, it becomes complicated.
It is especially wrong if a donor is used (anonymous or not - anonymous for above reasons, not anonymous because kids are between a husband and wife), and potentially grey if it is a huisband and wife using a third party as a rented gestator.
IVF would be allowed when there is no third party involved, but I would be vary of any creeping interest in designer babies.
I was reading the other day that the ratio of males to females in some places in india has been drastically changed (860 girls born to every 1000 boys born) since they could test the gender of an unborn baby - so much that in some areas they need to import brides. Not something that they thought about when they were killing of female feotuses.
New absolute wrong - abortion based on gender of the feotus.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Off the top of my head:
1. Something to do with sending kids to mixed schools? Don't think this ever happened in Islamic history but if u can't afford private school & the only state schools are mixed then u have no choice. Or maybe it's better to send kids to mixed schools cos it gives them more experience to how life in this society is... I.e grey area.
2. I'm not sure exactly what I meant... Err.. Something springs to mind about a prostitute who gave a thirsty dog water & for that she was forgiven for all her sins. For me, this relates somehow to the situations we're put into always giving us opportunities to redeem ourselves, & also the fact that any person is capable of good or bad actions... Only we know our intentions & it's possible God knows these better than we know for ourselves.
Which is why we should never judge other ppl, because on the surface actions might appear bad but really the intention is good.
I could have just said read the story of Musa (as) from surah al-Kahf. It's Friday today anyway so it's a sunnah.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Not sure about this. If I think about it, logically it seems to make sense, since if He is the Creator then nothing could ever exist (including 'goodness' or 'morality') without Him Creating it.
I've heard an argument that if i take this view, it makes my morality arbitrary, because basically we're at the whim of a Creator who could just so easily have chosen baby-killing as a praiseworthy action... So that means there is no intrinsic 'Goodness' in anything, even giving charity or looking after the sick.
But I disagree with this view, because it ignores for me the fact that in Islam, Allah (swt) is not only 'the Creator', He is also the 'All-Good' and the 'All-Just'... I take this to mean that God is also the source of Goodness, in a form that can only be matched by humans in metaphor, or in a reflection of His Goodness.
A morality exists within each person on the planet, whether they are religious or not, but even the very best out of all 6 billion of us could only understand just a shadow of True Morality. That is only with Allah (swt).
But the test of life is trying our hardest to get to know our true worth, our true purpose, our true Lord (and perhaps just focus with what is put in front of us at that particular time).
Personally, I think that people who think humans are capable of establishing a morality based on purely our own reasoning, discussion & consensus is either arrogant, naive or secretly trying to do so for their own gain.
but then again you can OBVIOUSLY go too far & be a lemming, obligingly following 'what our [...] told us to follow'... There has to be some room for us to manouver, especially since each individual's experience is different, & the same action could be Right in one circumstance but completely Wrong in another.
So, in summary, I guess I am kinda arguing for the golden-mean rule of Aristotle, which kinda defeats my argument.
Damn.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Aah, I get it now, thanks
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi