Is Morality Objective or Relative?

[siam]

So, would you say that purpose and meaning come from outside, from a creator, without the which there can be no such thing as purpose and meaning?

Its an interesting yet difficult question---The Quran says that God is the owner/master of the universe and that God is closer to us than our jugular vein---So is God external/internal?--or maybe, God is neither external/internal but a whole...a "unity"? The Eastern mystics say that the path towards the Divine is through the "self"---that once the "noise" generated by our constant thinking is silenced, then the door to the Divine can open....
Whether it is God who generates meaning/purpose or it is humans that discover it, the purpose itself remains---just as it does not matter if we acknowledge that God generates the laws of physics or humans discover it....."reality" is what it is. Purpose/meaning can be about what "we" (large groups of humans) choose to do with "reality"...we could say that the "laws of the jungle" are primary and so we must fight and kill because only the strongest will survive---or we can say that reciprocity makes for a better strategy for survival. So...where does wisdom come from....?...

Paradigms are narratives that large groups of people agree upon---and this shared narrative serves as a source of unity and purpose. Sometimes paradigms change and sometimes they are replaced. The environment and circumstances have an effect on large groups and large groups have an effect on the environment. In Islamic thinking---everything is effected by God---so groups, individuals, environment are all effected by God. (This concept is called "Qadr"). If you are interested, Ibn Khaldun (14th century) wrote a lot on these kinds of subjects and his writings are seeing a resurgent popularity among some Western scholars today....

[JimL]

Its an interesting yet difficult question---The Quran says that God is the owner/master of the universe and that God is closer to us than our jugular vein---So is God external/internal?--or maybe, God is neither external/internal but a whole...a "unity"? The Eastern mystics say that the path towards the Divine is through the "self"---that once the "noise" generated by our constant thinking is silenced, then the door to the Divine can open....
Whether it is God who generates meaning/purpose or it is humans that discover it, the purpose itself remains---just as it does not matter if we acknowledge that God generates the laws of physics or humans discover it....."reality" is what it is. Purpose/meaning can be about what "we" (large groups of humans) choose to do with "reality"...we could say that the "laws of the jungle" are primary and so we must fight and kill because only the strongest will survive---or we can say that reciprocity makes for a better strategy for survival. So...where does wisdom come from....?...

Paradigms are narratives that large groups of people agree upon---and this shared narrative serves as a source of unity and purpose. Sometimes paradigms change and sometimes they are replaced. The environment and circumstances have an effect on large groups and large groups have an effect on the environment. In Islamic thinking---everything is effected by God---so groups, individuals, environment are all effected by God. (This concept is called "Qadr"). If you are interested, Ibn Khaldun (14th century) wrote a lot on these kinds of subjects and his writings are seeing a resurgent popularity among some Western scholars today....

Sorry for the long delay in replying siam, computer problems. Anyway, if you are still there, would you say that in order to have meaning and purpose in life, it has to be objective? In other words do the paradigms, the narratives we write, need be based on an objective reality? And by objective I mean a reality beyond or outside of the universe.

[siam]

Sorry for the long delay in replying siam, computer problems. Anyway, if you are still there, would you say that in order to have meaning and purpose in life, it has to be objective? In other words do the paradigms, the narratives we write, need be based on an objective reality? And by objective I mean a reality beyond or outside of the universe.

Outside the Universe---I will interpret this to mean ---not based on "reality", (human nature/nature) but on a "Utopia". If, so, I think such a narrative would be unbalanced and therefore either prone to abuse or ineffective. That does not mean that a meta-narrative/paradigm cannot have fantastical elements ---such as creation myths and such. But, the principles, values, and laws derived from it have to actually "work" in the reality we live in.
(ethics/laws do not need a meta-narrative---for ex, Utilitarianism can be inconsistently and arbitrarily applied on a case by case basis). I say this because that (Utopia) is what ISIS and other such groups have done---they claim a historical "Utopia" to which they want to return (one that never existed) and in which this thing called "Pure Islam" was (supposedly) practiced....they have ditched pretty much everything about classical Islam---all the restraints and restrictions, the use of reason/rationality, meaning/purpose and even the most important part for a Muslim----Tawheed. The few things that these groups have retained---have been re-interpreted into something almost unrecognizable....However, considering the environment in which these paradigms arose---it is not surprising. Consider, ...Al-Qaeda, ISIS...etc arose in countries where the society was broken and traumatized, where harsh treatment of human beings was the "norm"---wars, torture, U.S. prisons....etc....where "survival" depended on being worse than the "other"---other being, neighbor, tribe, occupier---anyone and everyone. So when the future looks bleak and hopeless, a paradigm that says there was a time of goodness and peace in the past and if we do x and y we can get it back---is a simple, attractive narrative of hope. But this kind of narrative is only sustainable in a harsh environment---it will not function in a settled, stable, society because it simply will not apply or make sense...such societies have hope for the future and do not need to look to the past... (...according to Ibn Khaldun's explanations....)

[siam]

We can look at game theory or theories of social dynamics...co-operation results in the most optimal consequences (win-win) whereas self-interest, isolation, exclusion strategies are less beneficial (win-lose) in the long term. That is just how "reality" works. Even when we consider human nature, eudaimonic well-being (Altruism) leads to positive genetic changes that are passed down the generations....we are created predisposed to altruism...

[siam]

I got interrupted...so, to continue...

The Islamic paradigm/meta-narrative---would not make sense without God/Allah...it (God) is the starting point. There is an unbridgeable separation between the Infinite/Creator and the finite/created and the two cannot mix. (no incarnation)---But previously I also claimed that an external/internal dichotomy does not neatly apply....yet now I am claiming a separation! If we understand God as "The Reality" (whole Reality), then the reality we perceive through our senses and which we can understand through mathematics and other means is the limited, created, finite, reality. The finite reality is completely dependent on (the will of) God (Creator)/The Reality (Infinite), and cannot function/exist without it---therefore incarnation of any type (Christianity, Hinduism) is not necessary. Yet, because human nature, environment, "reality" are completely dependent upon (the will of) God/The Reality---Divine will/power is everywhere--external and internal (nature, universe, human beings, human bio-chemistry). Did that make sense? or is it more confusing? Some concepts from one paradigm do not transfer well into definitions and terms from another paradigm---fitting Islamic ideas into Western/Christian-centric terms/labels can be challenging.

Therefore, if human beings go against the natural condition they were created with (no "original sin")---they rebel against God's laws (they rebel against the human inclination for good) and this creates an imbalance. Ethics/laws promote the natural inclination for good and try to restrict any tendencies, intended or unintended, for harm. Such a framework provides the reason why submission to God's laws can be beneficial for humanity....and the conception of the intimate link between God's will and human benefit----God's will = right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations. (Khalifa/Trusteeship)
So, human beings using their free-will, though limited and constrained, to do God's will---this is Islam. The principles of Islamic ethics and laws are "universal" because they are based on a conception of our "Reality" however, their interpretation and implementation is relative because perception of "our reality" changes over time, geography, and environment.....
In terms of "right" (halal)/"wrong"(haram)---Islam does not have a binary conception---There are 5 degrees of rightness/wrongness---as well as exceptions within these categories....

[JimL]

Outside the Universe---I will interpret this to mean ---not based on "reality", (human nature/nature) but on a "Utopia". If, so, I think such a narrative would be unbalanced and therefore either prone to abuse or ineffective. That does not mean that a meta-narrative/paradigm cannot have fantastical elements ---such as creation myths and such. But, the principles, values, and laws derived from it have to actually "work" in the reality we live in.
(ethics/laws do not need a meta-narrative---for ex, Utilitarianism can be inconsistently and arbitrarily applied on a case by case basis). I say this because that (Utopia) is what ISIS and other such groups have done---they claim a historical "Utopia" to which they want to return (one that never existed) and in which this thing called "Pure Islam" was (supposedly) practiced....they have ditched pretty much everything about classical Islam---all the restraints and restrictions, the use of reason/rationality, meaning/purpose and even the most important part for a Muslim----Tawheed. The few things that these groups have retained---have been re-interpreted into something almost unrecognizable....However, considering the environment in which these paradigms arose---it is not surprising. Consider, ...Al-Qaeda, ISIS...etc arose in countries where the society was broken and traumatized, where harsh treatment of human beings was the "norm"---wars, torture, U.S. prisons....etc....where "survival" depended on being worse than the "other"---other being, neighbor, tribe, occupier---anyone and everyone. So when the future looks bleak and hopeless, a paradigm that says there was a time of goodness and peace in the past and if we do x and y we can get it back---is a simple, attractive narrative of hope. But this kind of narrative is only sustainable in a harsh environment---it will not function in a settled, stable, society because it simply will not apply or make sense...such societies have hope for the future and do not need to look to the past... (...according to Ibn Khaldun's explanations....)

Actually siam, what I was getting at was, if I am interpreting you correctly, meaning and purpose comes from the creator, from god, without the which there can be no such thing as meaning and purpose. If that is true where does the meaning and purpose of the creator come from, and what is his/her/its purpose?

[siam]

God's role----
All knowledge comes from God---even knowledge about our "self", human nature, social dynamics...etc. All laws that govern the universe and humans are God's laws---Both wisdom and science are "revelations" from God for benefit. From these sentiments you can see that "benefit" is one way---it is all about benefit to humans and through them to benefit all of God's creations. This formulation is important (in terms of meaning) because this implies human beings are not "special" because they were created special (Islam it very particular about "equality" because good justice cannot work without a good concept of equality) rather they are "special" because of the responsibility (obligation to God) placed on them. This obligation is to care for and protect all of God's creations. God is the creator---therefore owner of all that is created. The Trusteeship (Khalifa) is a contract between man and God. In legal terms, God is the Grantor/Owner, who has given authority and duty to Human beings who are the trustees, for the benefit of all of God's creations who are the beneficiaries. As such, human beings have a fiduciary duty (obligation) to work for the best interests of the beneficiaries. (What this does is instead of saying that human beings are special---therefore they have rights---as the West does, Islam says human beings are Trustees therefore they have obligations--- Deontological/ somewhat Kantian or Confucian ) It is because of this obligation, that human beings have been given some rights and some authority (free-will)--so that we can accomplish the duty placed on us. Thus, the purpose of rights and free-will is so that we are able to discharge our obligation. The term "all of God's creations" includes other human beings---therefore, moral principles and ethical/legal codes are a means of discharging this duty to God.

Making God the owner has ramifications for the formulation of both the concept of equality and of moral principles---this is how it works---
All things belong to God therefore all wealth belongs to God---It is God who allocates the proportion of wealth, even if it may seem that human effort "generated" wealth. Thus, those who have been given more wealth have an obligation to use part of their wealth for the benefit and care of those to whom God has not given as much....and those who have been given less wealth (by God) have more rights to the redistribution of wealth for their benefit and care. This balanced distribution of rights and responsibilities equalizes the inequalities to create a more balanced social structures where ethical justice can be practiced....
likewise...
All knowledge belongs to God, and God has allocated knowledge to some more than others. Therefore, those who have more knowledge have an obligation/duty to share this knowledge with those who do not have as much and those who have less knowledge, have a right to the acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge is owned by God and not by human beings---however, the effort/labor required to distribute knowledge need to be compensated, thus, those who have knowledge have some rights to profits---but this right cannot negate the right to knowledge of others---rather the rights to profit and the obligation to share knowledge must be balanced with each other...while at the same time protecting the right to knowledge of those who do not have it...(Children's rights)

"God" functions as an anchor/focal point for the formation of principles and structures of social and ethical/legal philosophy. "God" also functions as the balancing of scales between self-interest and altruism, between rights and responsibilites..etc. and "God" is the framework for the purpose of all existence and constructions of "meaning".

[Jim B.]

By "objective," I didn't mean something beyond humanity or beyond the universe. What I meant was something that is true regardless of opinions and choices. By "subjective" I meant something that is the result of opinion and choice. Can one person or a group of people decide what is moral and not moral? Could a person or group conceivably be wrong about their moral principles? If everybody in my tribe decides that killing innocent human out-group members is permissible, could we concievably be wrong about it?

[siam]

By "objective," I didn't mean something beyond humanity or beyond the universe. What I meant was something that is true regardless of opinions and choices. By "subjective" I meant something that is the result of opinion and choice. Can one person or a group of people decide what is moral and not moral? Could a person or group conceivably be wrong about their moral principles? If everybody in my tribe decides that killing innocent human out-group members is permissible, could we concievably be wrong about it?

The questions you are asking may be interesting...but maybe, the question we should be pondering also, is---how do human beings "know" to judge right/wrong? Obviously, so long as human beings have the ability to choose---they will decide right/wrong---but how? So...if human beings are the ones deciding the right/wrong of things, would that make morality subjective? IMO, a binary limitation on issues makes it problematic to fully understand matters. Which is why questions should not include binary phrasing of "A or B" rather all possibilities should be explored...?....

[JimL]

God's role----
All knowledge comes from God---even knowledge about our "self", human nature, social dynamics...etc. All laws that govern the universe and humans are God's laws---Both wisdom and science are "revelations" from God for benefit. From these sentiments you can see that "benefit" is one way---it is all about benefit to humans and through them to benefit all of God's creations. This formulation is important (in terms of meaning) because this implies human beings are not "special" because they were created special (Islam it very particular about "equality" because good justice cannot work without a good concept of equality) rather they are "special" because of the responsibility (obligation to God) placed on them. This obligation is to care for and protect all of God's creations. God is the creator---therefore owner of all that is created. The Trusteeship (Khalifa) is a contract between man and God. In legal terms, God is the Grantor/Owner, who has given authority and duty to Human beings who are the trustees, for the benefit of all of God's creations who are the beneficiaries. As such, human beings have a fiduciary duty (obligation) to work for the best interests of the beneficiaries. (What this does is instead of saying that human beings are special---therefore they have rights---as the West does, Islam says human beings are Trustees therefore they have obligations--- Deontological/ somewhat Kantian or Confucian ) It is because of this obligation, that human beings have been given some rights and some authority (free-will)--so that we can accomplish the duty placed on us. Thus, the purpose of rights and free-will is so that we are able to discharge our obligation. The term "all of God's creations" includes other human beings---therefore, moral principles and ethical/legal codes are a means of discharging this duty to God.

Making God the owner has ramifications for the formulation of both the concept of equality and of moral principles---this is how it works---
All things belong to God therefore all wealth belongs to God---It is God who allocates the proportion of wealth, even if it may seem that human effort "generated" wealth. Thus, those who have been given more wealth have an obligation to use part of their wealth for the benefit and care of those to whom God has not given as much....and those who have been given less wealth (by God) have more rights to the redistribution of wealth for their benefit and care. This balanced distribution of rights and responsibilities equalizes the inequalities to create a more balanced social structures where ethical justice can be practiced....
likewise...
All knowledge belongs to God, and God has allocated knowledge to some more than others. Therefore, those who have more knowledge have an obligation/duty to share this knowledge with those who do not have as much and those who have less knowledge, have a right to the acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge is owned by God and not by human beings---however, the effort/labor required to distribute knowledge need to be compensated, thus, those who have knowledge have some rights to profits---but this right cannot negate the right to knowledge of others---rather the rights to profit and the obligation to share knowledge must be balanced with each other...while at the same time protecting the right to knowledge of those who do not have it...(Children's rights)

"God" functions as an anchor/focal point for the formation of principles and structures of social and ethical/legal philosophy. "God" also functions as the balancing of scales between self-interest and altruism, between rights and responsibilites..etc. and "God" is the framework for the purpose of all existence and constructions of "meaning".

I'm not sure that answers my question siam. What is the meaning and purpose for gods own existence, regardless of his creation?

[siam]

I'm not sure that answers my question siam. What is the meaning and purpose for gods own existence, regardless of his creation?

I suppose if you are asking me---you probably think I am intelligent enough to have an answer!!!!---I will take that as a compliment, but alas, I do not have an answer to that as I am not God...why does it(God) think it exists? or what it thinks of its own existence?---no idea
...though some mystics have put forth the idea that God is most compassionate and merciful and the vastness of its compassion and mercy overflowed into "creation"---in other words, creation is a manifestation of its compassion and mercy. In Islam, God is NOT human in any way (no "imago dei" stuff) so speculating our needs/wants onto God would be futile...?....We don't even know the intentions of other human beings or what they are thinking!!!....

...what are your speculations on it?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure that answers my question siam. What is the meaning and purpose for gods own existence, regardless of his creation?

From the fallible human perspective the purpose of God is simple the existence of God.

[Jim B.]

The questions you are asking may be interesting...but maybe, the question we should be pondering also, is---how do human beings "know" to judge right/wrong? Obviously, so long as human beings have the ability to choose---they will decide right/wrong---but how? So...if human beings are the ones deciding the right/wrong of things, would that make morality subjective? IMO, a binary limitation on issues makes it problematic to fully understand matters. Which is why questions should not include binary phrasing of "A or B" rather all possibilities should be explored...?....

If human beings are deciding what's right/wrong, that would not necessarily mean that morality is subjective. It depends upon what you mean by deciding. If by my deciding, I am making my choice to be either right or wrong, then it would be subjective. But if my deciding is judging, to the best of my ability, what is right/wrong independent of my decision process, then morality would not be subjective.

Of course all possibilities should be included when they are relevant to the question. So your binary/not binary is a binary limitation on possibilities. Some questions do appear to be binary. In the case of morality, it is either the result of choice and agreement or it is not. Our agreement may be a necessary condition for acknowledging what is moral, but that acknowledgment is either of a truth that's independent of our agreement or not. There are many possibilities within this field, but as to this particular question, please tell me what other options there are.

[Jim B.]

Sorry for the long delay in replying siam, computer problems. Anyway, if you are still there, would you say that in order to have meaning and purpose in life, it has to be objective? In other words do the paradigms, the narratives we write, need be based on an objective reality? And by objective I mean a reality beyond or outside of the universe.

Maybe our purpose is to find our own purpose. As Sartre wrote, we are condemned to be free. Even if God is the ground of meaning and purpose, he may have allowed some creatures the freedom to discover who and why they are for themselves.

[JimL]

I suppose if you are asking me---you probably think I am intelligent enough to have an answer!!!!---I will take that as a compliment, but alas, I do not have an answer to that as I am not God...why does it(God) think it exists? or what it thinks of its own existence?---no idea
...though some mystics have put forth the idea that God is most compassionate and merciful and the vastness of its compassion and mercy overflowed into "creation"---in other words, creation is a manifestation of its compassion and mercy. In Islam, God is NOT human in any way (no "imago dei" stuff) so speculating our needs/wants onto God would be futile...?....We don't even know the intentions of other human beings or what they are thinking!!!....

...what are your speculations on it?

Well, the theist argument goes something like this. God must exist, otherwise there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our existence, which of course is true, the only meaning or purpose there would then be is that which we find to be relative to our own existence. But if meaning and purpose are objective in nature, if they need be imbued in our natures by an external source/god, then being that there is no external source to god, that would mean that there is no meaning or purpose to gods existence. The question then is, if we accept that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose for gods existence, then why should we expect that there is a god in order that we should have an ultimate meaning and purpose to our own existence.