Log in

View Full Version : Human Moral Standards are Universal



guerillablack
13th May 2005, 07:54
Human Moral Standards are Universal
By Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi - IslamiCity

A moral sense is inborn in man and, through the ages, it has served as the common man's standard of moral behavior, approving certain qualities and condemning others. While this instinctive faculty may very from person to person, human conscience has consistently declared certain moral qualities to be good and others to be bad.

Justice, courage and truthfulness have always found praise, and history does not record any period worth the name in which falsehood, injustice, dishonesty and breach of trust have been praised; sympathy, compassion, loyalty and generosity have always been valued, while selfishness, cruelty, meanness and bigotry have never been approved of by society; men have always appreciated perseverance, determination and courage, but never impatience, fickleness, cowardice and stupidity.

Dignity, restraint, politeness and friendliness have throughout the ages been counted virtues, whereas snobbery and rudeness have always been looked down upon. People with a sense of responsibility and devotion to duty have always won the highest regard, those who are incompetent, lazy and lacking in a sense of duty have never been looked upon with approval.

Similarly, in assessing the standards of good and bad in the collective behavior of society as a whole, only those societies have been considered worthy of honor which have possessed the virtues of organization, discipline, mutual affection and compassion and which have established a social order based on justice, freedom and equality.

Disorganization, indiscipline, anarchy, disunity, injustice and social privilege have always been considered manifestations of decay and disintegration in a society. Robbery, murder, larceny, adultery and corruption have always been condemned.

Slander and blackmail have never been considered healthy social activities, while service and care of the aged, helping one's relatives, regard for neighbors, loyalty to friends, aiding the weak, the destitute and orphans, nursing the sick are qualities which have been highly valued since the dawn of civilization.

Individuals who are honest, sincere and dependable, whose deeds match their words, who are content with their own rightful possessions, who are prompt in the discharge of their obligations to others, who live in peace and let others live in peace, and from whom nothing but good can be expected, have always formed the basis of any healthy human society.

These examples show that human moral standards are universal and have been well-known to mankind throughout the ages. Good and evil are not myths, but realities well understood by all. A sense of good and evil is inherent in the very nature of man.

Hence in the terminology of the Qur'an good is called ma'ruf (a well-known thing) and evil munkar (an unknown thing); that is to say, good is known to be desirable and evil is known not to commend itself in any way. As the Qur'an says: God has revealed to human nature the consciousness and cognition of good and evil. (al-Shams 91:8)

This is an excerpt from a translation of a talk given by Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi on Radio Pakistan, Lahore, on January 6, 1948

apathy maybe
13th May 2005, 08:03
Up till here I have no real problem.

Disorganization, indiscipline, anarchy, disunity, injustice and social privilege have always been considered manifestations of decay and disintegration in a society. Robbery, murder, larceny, adultery and corruption have always been condemned.
But then I see "disorganisation and anarchy [presumablly being used to mean chaos] as being considered manifestations ...". Well I disagree, sure organisation can provide good things for society, but it can also provide bad things. An example is government. And adultery what is wrong with this? What is wrong with sex with random strangers?


These examples show that human moral standards are universal and have been well-known to mankind throughout the ages. Good and evil are not myths, but realities well understood by all. A sense of good and evil is inherent in the very nature of man.
Good and evil are myths. The universe does not take sides.

guerillablack
13th May 2005, 08:27
Adultery isn't sex with random strangers. Look up the word. Government in itself doesn't have to be bad, what makes a government bad may be the combination of other manifestations of decay and disintegration in society. Such as music or entertainment. They necessarily aren't bad or good, it's other negative forces that may be propelling it which can make it evil.

apathy maybe
13th May 2005, 08:37
Adultery is considered to be sex by one member of a married couple, with another who is not part of that couple.

I don't believe in marriage. I don't believe that a person should be forced to stay with one person. I don't see anything wrong with adultery (as it often is a sign of a problem with the relationship, perhapes it is better if the other person found out).

I didn't say that organisation is it self bad, but that it can be used for 'evil' purposes. Just like in a disorganised society unscrupulous persons could take advantage of this. This does not mean that disorganisation is a manifestation of decay in society.

guerillablack
13th May 2005, 08:50
The negative disorganization you are talking of is what he is talking of.

Eastside Revolt
16th May 2005, 08:34
By “human” I’d assume he means Islamic?

First of all there are no sources whatsoever.

Second of all, how can one attack such utter bullshit? Loyalty is something I sure as hell don’t emphatically praise, and bigotry was quite praised in the south of old.

RedStarOverChina
16th May 2005, 08:53
I'm more of a ethical relativist, so Im sorry but I dont buy it. Take premarital sex for example, it was considered bad, now people are just realizing that they'd been doped by their religion.

redstar2000
16th May 2005, 15:45
What makes this and all similar statements meaningless is their complete lack of social context. It's ridiculously easy to think of concrete social situations where most of this stuff simply does not apply.


Justice, courage and truthfulness have always found praise...

No they haven't.

Injustice is normal in all class societies...but is nevertheless called "justice" and praised by those who benefit from injustice.

Many defenders of injustice are physically courageous in defense of that injustice...it would have been better if they had surrendered or run away.

Far from being praised, those who have been truthful about injustice are always persecuted and often killed by the beneficiaries of injustice.


...sympathy, compassion, loyalty and generosity have always been valued...

Sympathy for who? Compassion for who? Loyalty to what? Generosity to who?

My "inborn sense of morality" generates no sympathy for exploiters and no compassion for their apologists. I am not loyal to "my country" or its ruling class nor have I ever felt compelled to be "generous" in my assessment of its acts.


...men have always appreciated perseverance, determination and courage...

The perseverance of U.S. imperialism, its determination to retain and expand its empire, and the courage of its soldiers all win no "appreciation" from me...but rather hatred and contempt.


These examples show that human moral standards are universal and have been well-known to mankind throughout the ages. Good and evil are not myths, but realities well understood by all. A sense of good and evil is inherent in the very nature of man.

No, they show only that the words used to describe "moral standards" are so flabby and vague that they are essentially meaningless.


Hence in the terminology of the Qur'an good is called ma'ruf (a well-known thing) and evil munkar (an unknown thing)...

Anything that was not "well-known" at the time the Qur'an was written is "evil"?

One can see why the Muslim world "has problems" with modern critical thinking.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jake_crocker
18th May 2005, 22:12
I'm a moral relativist also. Good is what we like and bad is what we don't like. I suppose I have logical postivist tedancies as well. Why does anyone have the right to say what is right and what other people should aim for? For one man killing is always wrong and shunned; for another killing hitler would have been honourable.