The movement directed against morality and its role in the lives of societies and individuals increased in Western countries, in conjunction with the waves of the rise of the feminist movement and the homosexual movement, starting in the seventies of the last century, which mainly called for new ideas and concepts of revolutionary behaviour that are totally inconsistent with the course of human life over the previous centuries, while it is like a fierce war against the inherited moral system with its religious and customary references.
We have started the prelude to this series in the previous article under the name (Moralphobia), with the aim of pointing a finger at what is going on. After we have seen the significant creep of these ideas and behaviours storming our homes, and destroying the morals of our generations, whose building blocks began to disintegrate, one after the other, and they need everyone to understand in-depth on this matter, it helps to form solid positions in the face of this war that invades our stillness, defeat, and weakness in a thousand faces and colours.
Ethics as a concept, science, and philosophy passed through three main stages, which prevailed in successive periods of time, as follows:
- The first stage: Is the Greek stage, in which the mind prevailed as a source of guidance, reference, and responsibility for ethics and moral behaviour.
- The second stage: the stage of religious thought, which flourished in the Middle Ages, in which religion was the supreme reference for morals, whether in Islamic thought or Western thought.
- The third stage: Is the contemporary stage, which prevailed in the last century until now, and was greatly affected by the political conditions that prevailed in the first half of the century, and the terrifying world wars that resulted. This stage aims to separate religion and morals, and this trend has been growing throughout the second half of the last century until now, making great progress in various fields, in conjunction with the progress achieved by the feminist and homosexual movements.
In The Concept Of Morality
The search for a specific concept of ethics requires reference to thousands of philosophers throughout the ages, and various civilizations, Latin, Buddhist, Pharaonic, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hindu, Christian and Islamic... all the way to contemporary philosophers throughout the ages, times and currents, the definitions have varied in terms of considering the reference at one time.
This is in terms of considering the theoretical or applied aspect at another time, and in terms of considering the authority of control at a third time, and in terms of considering the intellectual direction at a fourth time, and in terms of considering its purpose, or considering its classification as good or evil, or as the centre of control, the mind or the soul or the heart? Or considering its origin, is it instinct, imprint, or acquisition?
Our interest comes in standing at the idiomatic meaning of ethics as a concept and as a science, as they are the orbit of rooting, protest and persuasion, not only among scholars, but also between decision-makers and their institutions on the one hand, and between the technocratic class on the other hand, and among the general public on the third hand, which makes the concept the starting point. And the basis on which the branches of science, theories and research are based after that.
In this post, I will begin by presenting some of the definitions given by a number of Muslim and Arab philosophers and thinkers of the concept of ethics and the science of ethics, both ancient and modern:
Al-Jahiz (767-868 AD) in his book “Tahdheeb al-Akhlaq” (Refining Morals)
The book defines morals as the state of the soul, with which a person does his actions without deliberation or choice, and that morals may be instinctive and natural for some. For others, it is only through exercise and diligence, and that differentiation between people in societies is based on morals and virtues, not on money and honour, and that bad morals are present in people’s character, and some of them are proud of them, and they are the worst of people.
As for good and honourable morals, those who have them realize the quality of the way they think and their ability to notice and realize ugly morals and then deal with praiseworthy habits, so that they obey them, and whoever does not yearn to part with them, and prefers insisting on them, his discipline will be through oppression and intimidation, then punishment if he does not care through intimidation.
Ibn Miskawayh (932-1030 AD) in his book “Tahdheeb Al-Akhlaq” (Refining Morals)
he sees that it is a state of the soul that calls for it and its actions without thinking or deliberation. Among them is what is learned with habit and training, and perhaps its beginning is with deliberation and thought, and then it continues until it becomes a faculty and a character.
Abd al-Qaher al-Jurjani (1009-1078 AD) in his book “Al-Tarifat” (Definitions)
Morals are a well-established body of the soul, from which actions emerge easily and easily without the need for thought and deliberation. And if the ugly deeds emanating from it are called the body that is the source of bad morals. And he proves that it is a well-established body by saying, "Because whoever issues money on vows in an occasional situation, his character is not said to be generous unless he proves it in himself, and likewise, he who makes silence when angry with effort or deliberation, his character is not said to be forbearing."
Al-Jurjani distinguishes between moral value and moral behaviour, so he sees that morals are not an act, so perhaps a person is generous with his morality, but he does not give either for the loss of money or for a reason, and his morality may be miserliness, and he gives either for a motive or hypocrisy.
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD) in his book “The Revival of the Religious Sciences”
He did not go far from what Al-Jurjani went to, that morals are a well-established body in the soul from which actions emerge easily without the need for thought and deliberation. And he believes that good manners are not achieved for a person except when he removes all the bad habits whose details are defined by the Sharia and makes them so that he brushes them off and avoids them as he avoids the filthy ones, and that he gets used to the good habits and longs for them so he influences them and enjoys them.
For Al-Ghazali, the character is not the act of the beautiful or the ugly, nor the ability to do the beautiful or the ugly, nor the distinction between the beautiful and the ugly, but rather it is the form by which the soul is prepared to issue from its restraint and giving, so the character is the form of the soul and its inner image, and this image has four pillars that are not It is necessary to be good in all of them in order to be well-mannered, namely: the power of knowledge, the power of anger, the power of lust, and the power of justice.
In the concept of ethics
Ahmed Amin (1886-1954) in his book “The Book of Ethics”
He believes that the science of ethics is a science that clarifies the meaning of good and bad, shows how people should treat each other, explains the purpose that people should aim for in their actions, and illuminates the way to do what should be.
He searches for people’s actions and judges them as good or bad, but not all actions are valid to be judged by this ruling, as many actions cannot be said about them as good or evil, such as involuntary actions such as breathing and heartbeat, these are not the subject of ethics science nor We judge them neither good nor bad.
Dr Rashad Darghouth (1907-1984) in his book “Research in Civic Education and Ethics"
He believes that the science of ethics examines the actions of individual human beings, and their actions collectively show the final goal that people should seek in those actions and draws the path leading to that. the aim. The seeker of knowledge is seeking it for strength, the seeker of money is seeking it for happiness, and the devout ascetic renounces the world for his desire for eternity and bliss.
He believes that a person is morally responsible for what he does, and he loses his feeling if he does not take precautions for the results, and he is responsible for the habits that he comes to without will, but against the will sometimes, because the habit is a repetitive voluntary action. The science of ethics examines voluntary actions, and what we can reserve for involuntary actions at the time of feeling and paying attention. And he searches for human goals, and the actions emanating from them, and he judges whether they are good or bad.
Sheikh Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Bisar (1910-1982) in his book “Aqeedah and Ethics in Islamic Philosophy”
He believes that it is difficult for historians of ethics to find a unified definition of this science, which is characterized by completeness, comprehensiveness and accuracy, and the reason for this difficulty is the different perceptions and the expansion of concepts throughout the ages and among nations, and to the multiplicity of topics that the science of ethics deals with in research and study.
It is said that it is the science of habits, and it is said that it is the science of man, and it is said that it is the science of good and evil, and it is said that it is the study of duty and duties, and it is said that it is the knowledge of virtues and how to acquire them, and vices and how to prevent them.
Dr Mahfouz Ali Azzam (1940-2019), in his book "Ethics in Islam between Theory and Practice"
He believes that ethics are the principles and rules regulating human behaviour that it defines organizing human life in a manner that achieves the purpose of his existence in this world in the most complete manner. And he believes that the subject of ethics is human behaviour in terms of whether it is good or bad, and in his study of this behaviour, he evaluates it according to a specific ethical standard, meaning that this science is concerned with values, not with facts.
It studies what things should be instead of what things are. As for what things is then that's where we resort to psychology and sociology. By stating what things should be, psychology and sociology would have an actual goal rather than just being tools of understanding.
Azzam distinguishes between three types of behaviour:
The first is the behaviour resulting from natural instincts and individual habits, and this resistance is very difficult
The second is the behaviour resulting from social customs and social customs, it has a lot of stability and coercion, with social customs differing from one environment to another in time and place.
The third type is the behaviour arising from moral habits, and this type is adhered to by man for fear of punishment.