Dr. Abdurrahman R. A Haqqi
Sultan Haji Omar Ali Saifuddien Institute of Islamic Studies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Revised by:
Dr. Masyhudi Muqorobin
Department of Economics, University of Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Overview:
Highlight the meaning of ethics
Identify ethics in relation to religion, law, etiquette, and empirical disciplines.
Identify some general ethical principles.
Note ethics from Islamic perspective.
Discuss issue surrounding ‘good’ and ‘bad’ origin.
What is Ethics?
The words "ethics" and "morality" have Greek and Latin origins ethos and mores, respectively. Traditionally they referred to customary values and rules of conduct (as in "cultural ethos" and "social mores"), as well as insights about what counts as human excellence and flourishing. "Ethics" and "morality" are often used interchangeably by us today. But ethics also refers to moral philosophy, i.e., a discipline of critical analysis of the meaning and justification of moral beliefs.
However, ethics has been defined as:
"The normative science of the conduct of human beings living in societies - a science which judges this conduct to be right or wrong, to be good or bad or in some similar way." (William Lillie, An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd edition, Methuen & Co. LTD., 1971, pg. 1 - 2)
Some key terms used in this definition are briefly explained for a better understanding of the concept.
'Normative Science' (as opposed to 'descriptive' or 'positive' sciences) in simple words, is a discipline, which describes or sets standards or rules for the field under consideration. For example, a 'normative grammar' of a language describes how its authors think that the language should be spoken or written. In other words, a normative science deals with 'how things ought to be' rather than 'how things really are'. 'Normative Sciences', primarily comprise of three fields:
'Aesthetics' deals systematically with the standards by which we judge the beauty or the ugliness of objects of sense perception, commonly sights and sounds. Thus, setting the standards of beauty or ugliness is related to the field of 'aesthetics'.
'Logic' deals systematically with the standards by which we judge the truthfulness or the falsehood of statements. Thus, setting any standards for 'true' and 'false' is related to the field of 'logic'.
'Ethics' deals systematically with the standards by which we judge the right or wrong in human action. Thus, setting any standards of 'right' or 'wrong' behavior in a society is related to the field of 'ethics'.
'Conduct' is a collective name for voluntary actions. A voluntary action is an action that a man could have done differently if he had so chosen.
Our definition has limited the conduct with which we deal in ethics in two ways:
We deal with human actions and not with the actions of the lower animals;
We confine ourselves to the study of the conduct of human beings living in societies.
Moralists sometimes go further and hold that the standards of ethics only apply to the relations of men with one another; the conduct studied in ethics is not only conduct done in a society, but conduct that affects some other member or members of that society. Although, it may be considered convenient to include, in a single normative science, all human activities, including those that appear to have no effects on other people or relations with them, yet common usage would certainly make a social activity like speaking the truth more directly the concern of ethics that a purely private activity with no marked effects like playing a guitar in one's private room or a religious activity like fasting. Of course, even such activities may have indirect social effects, however, as soon as such activities start having a social effect, they shall be included in the study of ethics. For instance, a man playing his guitar may start disturbing his neighbors. At this juncture, his apparently private activity would now be included in the scope of 'ethics'.
The subject of ethics essentially comprises issues fundamental to practical decision-making in case of all such actions, which bring one in an active or a passive interaction with other human beings. For this reason, the discipline, though long considered a branch of philosophy, is closely linked with many other fields of inquiry, including anthropology, economics, politics, and sociology. Ethics, however, remains distinct from such areas of study, as it deals with human conduct, as it ought to be, rather than as it actually is.
Ethics and morality--along with law and etiquette--are essentially normative, that is, they prescribe human behavior as obligatory, prohibited, or permissible. There’s considerable overlap between ethics and law, and ethics and etiquette. Much of the law embodies ethical principles: respect for basic rights to life, property, and the right of citizens to participate in political life. It’s usually unethical to break the law. A breach of etiquette can also be unethical if it is done intentionally to offend someone simply for one’s own amusement.
Ethics goes beyond etiquette, though, to include matters that nearly every human society considers significant: actions such as lying, breaking a promise or killing someone are more serious than social faux pas. Ethics also has to do with human character and motivation, which in many cases are irrelevant to etiquette and law. And law and etiquette can sometimes be criticized on moral grounds: consider U.S. laws and customs that historically treated African Americans and women as less than full citizens.
Empirical Disciplines
In contrast to ethics and other normative disciplines, many fields of study such as the natural sciences, psychology, history and economics are empirical, meaning that they attempt to describe, explain or predict events or motives or actions. In general, empirical disciplines deal with facts and probabilities, while normative disciplines promote or assess values. Empirical disciplines study what exists, what happened, or what tends to happen under certain conditions; their claims can at least in theory be tested using controlled scientific methods or in light of the best available evidence. Moral principles state how human beings ought to treat one another; moral claims cannot be proven or disprove by empirical means alone.
Ethical arguments often rely on empirical assumptions, though. And empirical claims are often made in ways that attempt to persuade people to accept a moral conclusion. In order to be able to tell whether ethical arguments are sound or cogent, we need to be able to distinguish between different types of moral claims, and between moral and empirical claims. We also must determine whether those claims are being used properly in support of moral conclusions.
Ethics (moral philosophy) is a designation of the systematic endeavor to understand moral concepts and to justify moral principles and theories.
The concepts are about ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘permissible’, ‘ought’, ‘good’, and ‘evil’.
The aims of ethics:
- It seeks to establish principles of right behavior that may serve as action guides for individuals and groups
- It investigates which values and virtues are paramount to the worthwhile life or society.
- It builds and scrutinizes arguments in ethical theories.
- It seeks to discover valid principles and the relationship between those principles.
There are three designation of actions
Right
Wrong
Permissible
Ethics is concerned with values- not what is but what ought to be. It has a distinct action-guiding or normative aspect, and, as such, belongs to the group of practical institutions that include religion, law, and etiquette.
Law, etiquette, and religion are all important institutions, but each has limitations.
- law: no law against every social malady & enforcement of every desirable rules
- etiquette: no indication to what is vitally important for personal and social existence
- religion: limited interpretation by authority because it is founded on revelation not on reason
Relationship between Ethics, Religion, Law, and Etiquette
Subject
Evaluative Disjuncts
Sanctions
Ethics
Right/wrong/permissible as defined by conscience or reason
Conscience/praise and blame
Religion
Right/wrong (sin)/permissible as defined by religious authorities
Conscience/hope of eternal reward and fear of punishment
Law
Legal/illegal as defined by legislative body
Punishments executed by judicial body
Etiquette
Proper/improper as defined by culture
Social disapprobation and approbation
Is morality objective? In other words, are there moral obligations that apply to all rational beings?
Consider some theories that deny this, and some reasons why those theories fail (cf. James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, third edition, 1999):
Nihilism: Morality is an illusion; there are no moral obligations. This would mean that there’s nothing inherently wrong with something like cruelty, which seems strongly counterintuitive. A nihilist would have no grounds upon which to argue rationally against someone else who wanted to harm him or her just for the fun of it.
Psychological egoism: We can’t avoid being selfish, hence there’s no point in reasoning about ethics. Selfishness can sometimes masquerade as altruism, to be sure. But PE is too sweeping and reductionistic: even if showing compassion toward others makes you happy, that isn’t necessarily why you do it. Even if we are sometimes selfish, we can have unselfish motives, too.
Normative egoism: I have no moral obligations to anyone else; only my interests count in deciding what I should do. But if others’ interests are similar to yours in relevant ways, it's arbitrary and thus irrational to ignore or discount theirs.
Subjective relativism: Ethics is relative to individual beliefs; whatever you believe is right is right "for you." But consider examples of rape, child abuse, torture, and slavery. Even if the perpetrators of such things believe them to be okay, that doesn’t make them right.
Cultural relativism: Ethics is relative to cultural beliefs. Clearly some cultural differences are significant, e.g., how the elderly are treated, or the status of women. But many values and rules are shared across cultures, such as those against lying, stealing, and murder. More importantly, the refutation of CR is like that of subjectivism: a culture’s belief in something doesn’t make it true "for them." (Is the earth really flat for people who believe it’s flat?) Moral disagreement between cultures doesn’t prove there’s no objectively true morality. We need to be on guard against ethnocentrism, but we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge cultural beliefs and practices that seem to violate basic human rights.
All of the theories above fail to prove that moral principles can’t be objective in some sense. Rejecting them doesn’t necessarily lead to arrogance or imperialism, since our own views are subject to rational critique and revision like everyone else’s. The point is to stand by those ethical principles that have the best reasons supporting them, and to refine or reject principles that are shown to be based on bad reasoning.
What are some ethical principles that seem to apply objectively to all of us?
- Compassion; concern for the well-being of others.
- Nonmaleficence: avoiding inflicting suffering and hardship on others.
- Beneficence: preventing and alleviating others’ suffering; meeting the needs of the most vulnerable; promoting others’ happiness (strongest toward our family and friends).
- Fairness; treating people the way they deserve to be treated; as having equal rights unless merit or need justifies special treatment.
- Courage in opposing injustice.
- Respect for individual autonomy; not manipulating rational individuals even for their own good.
- Respect for the Constitution and other laws enacted by legitimate governing bodies.
- Honesty; not deceiving anyone who deserves to know the truth.
- Not making promises that we don’t intend to keep.
- Keeping promises that we made freely.
- Integrity; upholding our obligations in spite of personal inconvenience.
Are any moral principles, rules or values absolute?
Possibly: Consider "Don’t rape," and "Don’t torture children or animals." There are no clear exceptions to those rules. But it’s often very difficult to state moral rules that aren’t vulnerable to counterexamples: "Don’t kill." – Never in self-defense? Never in defense of other innocent people? Never kill animals to survive? "Don’t lie" – Even to save lives or to prevent other serious harm? Principles can sometimes be strengthened, though, by incorporating exceptional cases. By refining general principles in "conversation" with concrete rules, we can hope to achieve what the philosopher John Rawls called "reflective equilibrium" (A Theory of Justice, 1971, revised 1999).
Perhaps most ethical principles should be considered prima facie binding on us: i.e., universal (not relative to cultural or individual beliefs) and timeless (slavery, e.g., was never objectively ethical), but not absolute. Ethical principles will often reinforce each other in opposition to selfishness and cruelty. But there will sometimes be situations where ethical principles conflict with one another, and we can’t always establish in advance which should take precedence. (This approach was developed by the philosopher W. D. Ross in The Right and the Good, 1930.)
Types of Ethics
Ethics is generally divided into three major sub-disciplines. These are (1) meta-ethics, (2) normative ethics, and (3) applied ethics.
'Meta-ethics' centers on questions relating to the nature and origin of moral concepts and judgments. Philosophers in meta-ethics have taken markedly different positions on this matter. There also has been much disagreement over whether moral judgments are objective or subjective, absolute or relative.
'Normative ethics' is primarily concerned with establishing standards or norms for conduct and is commonly associated with general theories about how one ought to live. One of the central questions of modern normative ethics has to do with whether human actions are to be judged right or wrong solely according to their consequences. Traditionally, theories that judge actions by their consequences have been known as 'teleological', though the term 'consequentialist' has in large part supplanted it. Another class of theories in normative ethics, designated as 'deontological', judges actions by their conformance to some formal rule or principle (for example, the ethical system of the philosopher Immanuel Kant).
'Applied ethics' is the application of moral theories to practical moral problems. Such moral issues as racial and sexual equality, human rights, and justice have become prominent, as have questions about the value of human life raised by controversies over abortion and euthanasia. Related to the latter are the ethical implications of various developments in regard to reproduction as, for example, in vitro fertilization, sperm banks, gene manipulation, and cloning. Perhaps the most striking development in the study of ethics during the second half of the 20th century has been the growing interest among philosophers in applied ethics.
The Standards of Determining 'Ethical' and 'Unethical'
Philosophers are not in agreement regarding the standards of judgment of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior. There have been a number of theories proposed by moral philosophers regarding the determination of standards of judging 'right' from 'wrong'. Some of the major theories are:
No Standards or Relative Ethics: Relative ethics maintains that there are no moral rules that apply to all men as such. There are forms of ethical relativity, which would admit of standards for all the members of a limited group, but would not hold these standards true for those not belonging to that group. However, there are other more extreme forms of ethical relativity in which what is right for any man is a purely individual matter. Thus, according to this point of view, there is no question of any standard at all.
The Standard as Intuition: Intuitive ethics maintains that 'good' actions are those, which are believed to be 'good' through the intuition of the individual passing the judgment.
The Standard as Law: Legal ethics maintains that 'good' actions are those, which are stated to be 'good' by the law. The word 'law' according to this school includes all such laws that are passed by a higher authority, including God - as in the Law of God, or Law of Moses (pbuh). Thus, Christian or Judaic ethics, which maintains that all that has been prescribed in the divine law is 'good' and all that has been prohibited is 'bad', can be considered as a part of this school.
The Standard as Pleasure: This theory holds that pleasantness is the only quality because of which an experience is 'good' or valuable. A good action I san action, which leads to a pleasant experience as its consequence, and the right action at any moment is the one which will lead to more pleasant experiences or to greater pleasure than any other action. It should be remembered that this school does not merely hold that one of the consequences of 'good' is pleasure. It, on the contrary, holds that the only thing, which makes an action 'good' is the consequent pleasure that may result from it.
The Standard as Determined by Evolution: According to this school, the conduct to which we apply the name 'good' is relatively more evolved conduct, and the conduct to which we apply the name 'bad' is relatively less evolved. The particular moral code accepted by any community at any period of history depends on the natural selection of that community, in accordance with its circumstances.
The Standard as Perfection: According to this theory, 'good' action is one, which contributes in making the self 'perfect' and helps in removing all human shortcomings from it.
The Standard as Value: According to this school, 'good' actions are those, which produce 'good' or valuable consequences.
Why Be Ethical?
It can be easily derived from the above varying points of views regarding the standards of ethical and unethical behavior that the motivating force for opting for good behavior and for avoiding bad behavior would naturally be quite different in these schools. For instance, according to the proponents of relative ethics, the motivating force is generally the inclination and the innumerable internal as well as external factors leading to the decision of the individual under consideration. While in the case of intuitive ethics, it is the psychological condition of the individual, which in turn depends on his financial, social and educational background. In the case of the standard as law, the motivating factor for ethical behavior is generally the avoidance of punishment attached with 'bad' behavior or reaping the rewards attached with doing 'good'. In the case of the standard as pleasure, the reason for being ethical is the pleasure that is expected from being ethical. In case of the evolution school of ethics, the prime motivator is to conform to and to contribute in the evolution process of the individual as well as the group with which the individual is attached. In case of the standard as perfection, the prime motivator is the consequent spiritual and moral perfection that is expected from the conformity with 'good' action. Finally, in the standard as value school, the motivating factor for doing 'good' is the expectation of the good or the valuable consequences.
ETHICS ARE AN ASPECT OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT
Ethics are not a separate but an integrated element in a greater whole. Consequently, ethically justified conduct can also be supported or hindered by other aspects from management. In recent years, a lot of new management instruments and techniques have been introduced in the public authorities. These instruments can also serve as a lever for ethics. In this respect we think in the first place of the human resources management. With the selection and evaluation of civil servants, ethical criteria (e.g. integrity) must take a central position. Also in the systems of measurement and evaluation of performances, attention can be paid to the ethical dimension.
Thus the ethical infrastructure will not lead an isolated life in the organization, but will be reinforced from general management.
The Ethical Philosophy of Islam
Having understood the concept of ethics and seen the different schools of moral philosophy, it is now time to focus on the ethical philosophy of Islam. We shall begin with an introduction to the standard of judgment regarding ethical and unethical behavior as given by Islam and the motivating force that, according to the tenets of Islam, should play the major role in opting for 'good' and avoiding 'bad'. Finally, we shall see the distinction between ethical philosophy of Islam and other ethical philosophies.
لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة
و إنك لعلى خلق عظيم
The best among you are those who have the best character
What is Islamic ethics?
It is the set of principles that are laid down by Islam as guides to proper actions. Its central purpose is to secure valid principles of conduct and values that can be instrumental in guiding human actions and producing good character. Thus, Islamic ethics concerns to how we are to live in accordance with Islamic teachings.
Sources of Islamic Ethics
The Holy Quran
The Sunnah
Ijma (Consensus)
Qiyas (Analogy)
Other recognized sources such as maslahah mursalah (Public Interest) and ‘Urf (Custom)
Islamic Ethical Foundation of Islamic Science and Conducts
The Right of Allah:
Al-Baqarah: 284; 23: 88; 24:33; 20:6; 31:20
Interest and Unlawful Trade:
Al-Baqarah: 275-276, 278; Ali Imran: 130-132; 4:161; 30:39
(Bukhari) Book 010, No 3652; v. 3, Book 34, No 275; v. 3, Book 34, No 276; Muslim No 3880-1. etc
Ethics and Moral
49:13; 3:110; 3:104; 68:4; 95:4;
Ahmad
Sincerity
98:5; 107:7; 3:76, 120
Book 020, No 4597; v 3, Book 46, No 727; v. 4, Book 52. No 255
Truthfulness
3:95; 15:64; 19:54; 9:119; 3:70-1; 9:105
V. b, Book 73, no 116
Trust
4:58; 8:27; 2:283; 81:21; 4:105-107; 3:75
No bribery and corruption
2:188; 30:41
No cheating
17:35; 7:85; 8:1-2; 8:3-6
Justice
16:90; 4:135; 65:2; 5:9; 38:26; 28:77, 80; 2:143, 195
Adherence to contracts
5:1; 23:8; 2:282
Accurate Measurement and Weight
17:35; 7:85; 55:9; 83:6
Repayment of Debts
2:280
Bukhari, Muslim
No cheating
17:35; 7:85; 8:1-2; 8:3-6
Justice
16:90; 4:135; 65:2; 5:9; 38:26; 28:77, 80; 2:143, 195
Adherence to contracts
5:1; 23:8; 2:282
Accurate Measurement and Weight
17:35; 7:85; 55:9; 83:6
Brotherhood
49:13; 3:103; 59:10; 21:92
Arrogance
31:18;
Courteous greeting
4:86
Destruction of Surplus Produce (Artificial Scarcity
2:205
Protection of environment
16:81; 7:31; 6:141-2; 35:27-8; 30:41; 28:77.
Science and Knowledge
20:114; 58:11; 18:66; 17:85; 96:5; 39.9
Standard of Judgment of 'Good' and 'Bad'
According to Islam, man has not come into existence on his own and neither is he a product of natural forces that had somehow, by pure chance, combined to produce life. On the contrary, man is a creation of an All Wise, and a Most Merciful Creator. God gave man life and with that also gave man the freedom and the authority to do good or to indulge into evil. This authority and this freedom was given to man for the basic purpose of testing him, as to how he uses his authority and freedom. As a part of this test, God also gave man the basic knowledge of 'good' and 'bad' at the time of his inception. Thus, according to Islam, every individual has been bestowed a clear standard of judgment of 'good' and 'evil' by God. The Quran, in Surah Al-Shams (91: 7 - 10) has presented this knowledge of the human soul as an evidence of the fact that soon, man shall indeed face separate consequences of his 'good' and 'bad' deeds. The Quran says:
The human soul - the way He molded it and inspired it with knowledge of its evil and its good - bears witness to the fact that indeed he, who cleanses it [of all impiety] shall be successful while he, who corrupts it shall face doom.
Thus, according to the Ethical philosophy of Islam, the knowledge of good and evil or in other words the standard of distinguishing good from evil is a part of the sapiential sense of man. This sapiential sense includes, besides many other concepts, moral concepts like justice, truthfulness, honesty, helping the weak, freedom in one's personal matters etc. It is quite possible though, that there is a difference in the application of these concepts in practical life situations, yet the concepts themselves have never been questioned and are, and have mostly remained, universally accepted. It is for this reason that ethical values like justice, honesty, trustworthiness and truthfulness etc. have never even been questioned philosophically, even if there is a considerable practical deviation from these values or a huge difference in the practical application of these values.
It is precisely for the stated reason that man, on the Day of Judgment, shall have no excuse for any voluntary and conscious deviation from these values in his life, even if he has remained ignorant of the teachings of any prophet. Every person, irrespective of whether he is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist or an agnostic, knows that defrauding others is wrong. He defrauds others not due to any misconception about the 'goodness' or the 'badness' of defrauding others, but to gain some immediate and quick material gains from such an act. The same is the case of all other basic moral values. The excuse of ignorance, in the case of these basic moral and ethical values, shall therefore not save an individual from punishment on the Day of Judgment, as, in reality, there has never been ignorance in this sphere.
The Nature and Scope of the Islamic Shari`ah vis a vis Ethical Issues
The Quran has indeed reminded - not introduced - man of a number of basic moral and ethical values. The Quran has, for instance, mentioned wrongfully depriving others of their rights and bribing authorities for this purpose to be a great sin, as a direct corollary of the basic values of justice, honesty and refraining from defrauding others. However, this reference of the Quran is not to introduce man to the fact that such an act is sinful, but to remind him that he himself is fully aware of it being a sinful act. In Al-Baqarah 2: 188, the Quran says to the effect:
Do not devour one another's wealth through unjust means, nor bribe the authorities in order that you may wrongfully usurp the possession of others - while you are well aware [of its being a sinful act].
Most of the references to ethical principles or their applications to practical life situations, in the Quran are of the same nature. They are not mentioned as a first-time introduction for man, but as an obvious reality of which man is already aware.
However, there is another category of directives in the Quran, which relates primarily to the application of universal ethical principles. For instance, the Quran has mentioned the etiquette of interaction between unrelated men and women in a mutually interactive environment. This directive of the Quran is based primarily on the value of Haya. However, in this particular case, the Quran has not stopped merely at reminding man of keeping the value of Haya in mind while interacting with the opposite sex, but has also prescribed a code that should be observed while such an interaction takes place. The same is the case, for instance, in the prohibition of Riba. The prohibition of Riba, according to the Quran is based on the universal principle of justice. Nevertheless, the Quran has not stopped merely at reminding man of keeping the value of justice in perspective, while economically transacting with others, but has gone further to prohibit a transaction that, in its view, was based on such an injustice.
These and other similar cases are examples where the Quran has not merely mentioned an ethical principle but has actually applied an ethical principle to a practical life situation and has prescribed or prohibited a certain act. However, a close analysis of all such situations shows that the Quran has done this only in cases where:
In the absence of such divine prescription or prohibition, there could have been a significant difference of opinion and, subsequently, a significant deviation in human application of these ethical values to practical life situations. People could have gone to extremes in such applications; and
Deviations in such applications affect the moral and spiritual cleansing of individuals, which, in turn, affects the success or failure in the hereafter.
The Quran has only made applications of universal ethical principles in cases where both the conditions mentioned above are satisfied.
Thus, to summarize, the ethical teachings of Islam may be classified into two categories:
1.Where the Quran has reminded man of the basic ethical values with the implication that if man consciously deviates from such values, he shall then have no excuse to defend himself from facing the consequences of such deviation.
2.Where the Quran has applied the basic ethical principles on practical life situations and has prescribed or prohibited a particular code of conduct.
An exhaustive explanation and enumeration of issues in Islamic ethics should consist of both these categories.
The Answer to the Question 'Why Be Ethical?' in the Islamic Perspective
In one of the preceding sections, we had seen that the various schools of moral philosophers have given their own answers to the question that why should a person choose to behave in a manner that is considered to be in keeping with the ethical norms and standards of his society. In this section, we shall see what is the answer to this question from the Islamic perspective.
Before we consider the answer to the said question in the Islamic perspective, it seems necessary to clarify that in a number of situations, the question of deviating from an ethical principle does not even arise. Let us take 'honesty', as a case in point. There are a number of situations in one's life where there is absolutely no reason to deviate from honesty. For instance, if someone, under normal circumstances, asks me my name, I am not likely to deviate from the principle of 'honesty'. I would, in most of the cases, tell him my name very 'honestly'. It is only under circumstances where a high - material, physical or emotional - price is likely to be paid or a great benefit likely to be sacrificed that one needs a good reason to adhere to 'honesty'. The same would hold true for all ethical principles. It is only under circumstances where adherence to ethical or moral values is likely to be followed by a loss that this adherence needs a reason.
The reason for such adherence, from the Islamic perspective is simply that it is a direct requirement of the articles of faith of Islam to adhere to such ethical or moral principles, irrespective of the volume of cost that has to be borne or that of the benefit that may be lost. The declaration of Iman (faith) not followed by good deeds, in the eyes of Islam, is either hypocrisy or ignorance.
A person who truly believes in the Islamic articles of faith (Tauhid, Risalah and Akhirat) cannot be unmindful of the practical requirements of these articles of faith. Ignorance of the practical requirements of these articles of faith, translates into ignorance of the articles of faith themselves. Furthermore, being unmindful of fulfilling these requirements practically refutes the very existence of true Iman in one's heart.
The Difference Between Islamic and Other Ethical Philosophies
It should be obvious from the preceding discussion that the Islamic Ethical philosophy differs from the other philosophies on two basic accounts:
1.The origin or the motivating factor in adherence to ethical principles under the Islamic ethical philosophy is primarily the articles of faith of Islam. In other words, ethical behavior, under the Islamic ethical philosophy is a requisite of the articles of Islamic faith. An attitude of deviation from ethical principles is a practical negation of ascription to the very elements of Islamic faith.
2.The practical application of ethical principles of the Shari`ah, with the basic universal ethical principles themselves, are a part of the basic code of ethical conduct in Islam. Thus, refraining from Riba is as much a part of the Islamic code of ethics as dealing with others in a just manner.
References:
The Holy Quran
Moiz Amjad, “Principles of Islamic Ethics - An Introduction”
Dr. David L. Perry, “Ethics in Public Service”
Pojman, Introduction to the Philosophy
Syed Othman Alhabshi, “Islamic Justice in Administration”, in Islam and Justice (Kuala Lumpur: IKIM, 1993)
Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations by a High-level Expert Group on IN SEARCH OF GLOBAL ETHICAL STANDARDS, 22-24 March 1996
Vienna, Austria
Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations
by a High-level Expert Group on
IN SEARCH OF GLOBAL ETHICAL STANDARDS
Chaired by Helmut Schmidt
22-24 March 1996
Vienna, Austria
Introduction
1. As human civilization advances into the 21st century, the world is entering a period of transformation at least as profound and far reaching as that of the industrial revolution. Globalization of the world economy is matched by globalization of the world’s problems ? population, environment, development, unemployment, security and moral and cultural decadance. Humankind is crying out both for justice and for meaning.
3.The physical changes in technology and the applied sciences have far outstripped the ability of our institutions to respond. The state is still the main instrument for translating collective will into concrete action but everywhere the concept of state sovereignty is under siege. To repeat the well known phrase the nation state is too small for the big problems and too big for local problems. The multinational corporation enjoys unprecedented opportunities as world trade and investment expands but corporate leaders now face agonizing questions about corporate responsibility in unfamiliar areas like human rights. Religious institutions still command the loyalty of hundreds of millions of people but secularization and consumerism command even more support. The world is also afflicted by religious extremism and violence preached and practiced in the name of religion. The use of the word “fundamentalism” in this regard is a misnomer, because religious people everywhere believe deeply in the fundamentals of their faiths, but most religious people also reject violence and believe that force should never be used to advance their cause. So the world is in flux. Where do we turn?
4.
Concrete Recommendations
5.
3. To promote the dissemination of ethical norms, the InterAction Council recognizes that sovereign states are still the primary vehicles of change. Granted that the sovereign states are the main target, we should also pay due attention to the role of electronic mass media and the possible transnational organizations that are increasingly gaining power on the global scene
6.
4. To ensure some significant degree of success in promoting a global ethic, it is essential and perhaps crucial that religions of the world with divergent believe systems and regions of influence should be able to cooperate closely in persuading the sovereign states and various relevant institutions to help realize this goal. This would serve at least two important functions. On the one hand, this collaborative effort will demonstrate that different religions can indeed meet with open minds in reaching an agreement on the urgency of the problems humanity faces today , and on the role of ethical standards and norms required to combat this world crisis. On the other, the mere fact that all the religions of the world have been able to work in concert to promote global ethical standards will ease the task of disseminating such norms throughout the world.
7.
5. Meetings of the world religious leaders could facilitate the cause of global ethics. Such meetings can specifically urge sovereign states and their leaders, educational institutions, mass media (TV, video, etc.), as well as their own religious institutions, to adopt and promote by every means possible a consensus on the global ethic. It should be stressed that such gatherings should include representatives of religions, making sure to include women. Existing global religious organizations could facilitate such meetings.
8.
6. Recommendations by these groups should be directed mainly to the people in decision-making positions of government, education, mass media, non-governmental non-profit organizations, and religious organizations of each sovereign state. These have direct or indirect involvement with propagation and inculcation of the global ethical standards and norms contained in the recommendations and other basic information related to world religions.
7. If religious leaders accept the invitation of the InterAction Council to meet, the world will welcome a discussion of a concrete action plan to promote the dissemination of the global ethic. While not exclusive, elements of such a plan could include:
the compiling of a common code of ethics which could then be put in booklet form and disseminated across the globe.
In addition to this general code of ethics, specific codes of ethics should be promoted for the professions, business, political parties, mass media and other critical interests. Such codes of ethics will contribute to self-regulation.
Suggestions to the world’s leaders that in 1998, the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations should convene a conference to consider a Declaration of Human Obligations to complement the earlier crucial work on rights.
Development of a global educational curriculum that would include the best contributions of the world’s religions and philosophies. Such a curriculum should be available to every educational institution and it should be accessible through the most current communications technologies ? the internet, educational television, videos, radio, etc.
To broaden understanding and to combine the intellectual resources necessary for the development of such a curriculum, the United Nations should consider establishing as part of the U.N. University system a World Interfaith Academy that would bring together scholars, students and leaders of the world’s faiths.
The Need for Global Ethical Standards
8. As Aristotle taught us the human being is a social animal. Because we must live in society ? because we must live with each other in harmony ? human beings need rules and constraints. Ethics are the minimum standards that make a collective life possible. Without ethics and self-restraint that are their result, humankind would revert to the jungle. In a world of unprecedented change humankind has a desperate need of an ethical base on which to stand.
9. The world’s religions constitute one of the great traditions of wisdom for humankind. This repository of wisdom, ancient in its origins, has never been needed more. Ethics should precede politics and the law, because political action is concerned with values and choice. Ethics, therefore, must inform and inspire our political leadership. Education at its best opens up human potential to understanding and tolerance. Without ethics and the teaching of right and wrong, our schools become mere factories mass producing labor soon to be obsolescent. Mass communications is one of the most powerful mediums in influencing the mind and behaviors of human beings but the violence, degradation and triviality of much of the media pollute the human spirit rather than elevate it.
10. To respond to this world of change each of our institutions needs a re-dedication to ethical norms. We can find the sources of such a re-dedication in the world’s religions and ethical traditions. They have the spiritual resources to give an ethical lead to the solution of our ethnic, national, social, economic and religious tensions. The world’s religions have different doctrines but they all advocate a common ethic of basic standards. What unites the world’s faiths is far greater than what divides them. They all advocate self-restraint, obligations, responsibilities and sharing. They all advocate the virtues of humility, compassion and justice. Each assesses the maze of life and in its own way discerns the patterns which give meaning to the whole. To solve our global problems we must begin with a common ethical base.
The Core of a Global Ethic
11. Today humanity possesses sufficient economic, cultural, and spiritual resources to introduce a better global order, but old and new ethnic, national, social, economic and religious tensions threaten the peaceful building of a better world. In such a dramatic global situation humanity needs a vision of peoples living peacefully together, of ethnic and ethical groupings and of religions sharing responsibility for the care of earth, a vision which rests on hopes, goals, ideals, standards. We are therefore grateful that the Parliament of the World’s Religions, which assembled in Chicago in 1993, proclaimed a Declaration towards a Global Ethic which we support in principle.
12. There have been landmark advances to strengthen human rights in international law and justice beginning with the United Nations adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, strengthened by the two Human Rights Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Social, Cultural and Economic Rights, and elaborated by the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights and Programme for Action. What the U.N. proclaimed on the level of rights, the Chicago Declaration confirmed and deepened from the perspective of obligations: the full realization of intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humans with each other, both as individuals and as communities. Also we are convinced that a better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone; that action in favor of rights and freedoms presumes a consciousness of responsibility and duty, and that therefore both the minds and hearts of women and men must be addressed; that rights without obligations cannot long endure, and that there will be no better global order without a global ethic.
13. The global ethic is no substitute for the Torah, the Gospels, the Quran, the Bhagavadgita, the Discourses of the Buddha or the Teachings of Confucius and of others. A global ethic provides a necessary minimum of common values, standards and basic attitudes. In other words: a minimal basic consensus relating to binding values, irrevocable standards and moral attitudes which can be affirmed by all religions despite their dogmatic differences and can also be supported by non-believers.
14. In affirmation of the Chicago Declaration which for the first time in the history of religions formulated this minimal basic consensus, we recommend two principles which are vital for every individual, social, and political ethic:
(1) Every human being must be treated humanely.
(2) Do unto others as you want others to do unto you. This Rule is part of every great religious tradition.
15. On the basis of these two principles there are four irrevocable commitments on which all religions agree and which we fully support:
a commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life,
a commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order,
a commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness,
a commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men
and women.
16. Cognizant of the different approaches of religions towards family planning policies and methods, it was agreed that present population trends make the pursuit of effective family planning inevitable. The positive experience of several countries and religions should be shared and scientific research into family planning should be accelerated.
17. Education, at all levels, has a crucial role to play in inculcating global ethical values in the minds of the younger generation. From the primary school to the university, curricula and syllabi should be restructured to include common global values and to promote understanding of religions other than one’s own. Educational programmes should inform values like “affirmative tolerance” and curricular materials should be produced accordingly. The development of the aspirations of youth should be a major emphasis. UNESCO and the United Nations University and other international bodies should work together to achieve this objective. The electronic media should be enlisted.
18. We note the ongoing participatory process, initiated by the Earth Council and Green Cross International to develop and Earth Charter. We welcome this initiative as an example of an effort to involve the world’s religions and other groups in defining the basic change in values, behavior and attitudes of government, private sector and civil society, needed for a shift to a sustainable development.
19. Because respect of life is a core ethical commitment, combating the scourge of war and violence must be at the top of the world’s priorities. Two issues in particular smut receive immediate attention: the trade in small arms, semi-automatic weapons must be curbed and the easy availability of such weapons must cease. And like small arms, landmines have destroyed a score of innocent lives. This problem is especially acute in Cambodia, in the former Yugoslavia, in Africa and in Afghanistan. The systematic removal and dismantling of landmines is an urgent need.
