Islam (Religion)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 12:56 (5699 days ago) @ Carl

The discussion between David and Carl has revolved round what constitutes morality on a personal, national and international level. It has embraced such topics as the death penalty, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, and the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. Carl has suggested substituting the word "wise" for "moral", and he defines "human dignity" as the right of the individual to exercise his will without compulsion, this right being removed from certain members of society such as students, military personnel and prisoners, while parents gradually extend it to their children. - I think any definition has to incorporate the rights of individuals in relation to the rights not only of other individuals but also of other forms of life. Morality in my view is not served by the pollution of air and water, by the slaughter of elephants and whales, or by kicking a dog. Nor is it served by the execution of criminals, especially bearing in mind the many miscarriages of justice that keep coming to light (the Birmingham Six, for example). Even one such wrongful execution (think of Timothy Evans) makes the principle of the death penalty abhorrent. Nor is human dignity served by one set of humans oppressing another, or by one religious body attacking another for holding different beliefs. Perhaps as our basic principle, then, we might try something like this: morality consists in the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life. - "Minimal" may be a weak link here, but I'm thinking of the morality behind meat-eating. This is a natural activity connected with survival, and I'm not convinced that vegetarianism should be made compulsory! The emphasis then would be on humane ways of killing animals for meat. As regards the death penalty, it would be abolished ... as it has been in the UK (for murder) since the 1960s ... because society does not need to kill criminals in order to protect itself. Religious or ideological terrorism would also be out of the question. We have the right to defend ourselves, but we do not have the right to attack others. - What about the Palestinian problem? Clearly, the Israelis are hindered in their pursuit of happiness if they are under constant threat from the Arab world. They must have their security. But equally clearly, the Palestinians must have the same right. This can only be achieved by mutual recognition. If one party is vastly stronger than the other, it is the strong that must make concessions (even if conditional), but the international community can also make moves: for instance, vast investment in the region, provided that the Arabs guarantee Israel's security. If each acknowledges the other's right to pursue happiness, there can be negotiations on a viable division of land ... perhaps with an international peace-keeping force to oversee the first phases and ease fears on both sides. Violence will never solve the problem. Recognition of shared human dignity, with the relief of poverty and suffering and an open road to happiness, is the only solution. - Of course it's all pie-in-the-sky idealism, because humans are too diverse to create a just world. There will always be leaders with ambition, there will always be greed, competition, the I-know-best and the holier-than-thou ideology, plus fear and poverty that act as equally strong motives for interfering in other people's lives. But that doesn't invalidate the concept or the aspiration.