Assignment on Why and how should we be moral? Difference between Islamic and Secular Ethics

1. Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
Tropic: Assignment on the tropic-
Why and how should we be moral?
Difference between Islamic and Secular Ethics
Supervised By
Dr. Sharmin Islam
Asst. Professor
Department of Business Administration
Submitted To:
Department of Business Administration
Northern University Bangladesh
Submitted By:
Section- A
Submission Date: 20-02-2014
Sl No Name ID
01 S.M. Al-Shahriar BBA 120304790
02 Md. Foysal BBA 120304830
03 Md Idris Ali BBA 110304351

2. Why should We be moral?
You ask for what has been called the Holy Grail of Moral Philosophy: an argument that will
convince an amoralist or egoist that she should be moral. Although great philosophers have tried,
and we will sketch some attempts to answer the question .
By moral we take it that you mean acting for the sake of others rather than purely selfishly. And
we take it that you accept it is best for an amoralist to live in a society where others are moral, all
the better to exploit them, rather than in a society of each against all in which life is ‘solitary,
violent, nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes puts it.
Of course morality is the norm. Rather like language, it comes naturally to us with exposure to
instances in childhood reinforced by teaching. But to give an account in terms of evolved human
nature is to explain it. What concerns us here is to justify it, to find good reasons for being moral.
Three main arguments have been put forward to justify morality.
1. God commands it
2. Happiness requires it
3. Acting immorally is irrational
1. God commands it.
God’s being our creator, or loving us, don’t seem good reasons. Hope of heaven or fear of hell
appeal to expediency or self-interest, not to morality. We might follow the rules because they are
good rules. But then appeal to divine command is redundant — God (if good) commands the
rules because they are good, rather than the rules being good because God commands them, as
Socrates famously argues in Euthyphro. Even for monotheists, divine command is an
unsatisfactory basis for morality. Thus Aquinas held that the moral law, albeit God’s law, stands
up on rational grounds alone. Despite its philosophical shortcomings, divine command is given
as a reason for being moral by many monotheistic religious persons, some citing fear of God as
the incentive. But it cuts no ice for everybody else, including the amoralist.
2. Happiness requires it.
This is the answer of Aristotle and of modern virtue ethics. Having regard to human nature we
identify the chief good for humans achieved in a community, and characterized as ‘rational
activity of the soul in accordance with virtue’ (Aristotle). A virtuous life is the most fulfilled one
— most of the virtues are centered on others’ welfare, and the fulfilled life is not one of (only)
self-interest. Socrates thought so. In Plato’s Republic, in response to the challenge of Glaucon/
Adeimantus, he argues for the extreme position that the just (moral) man, even if considered
unjust, reviled and rejected by society, is nevertheless happier than the unjust man with a
reputation for justness who is respected and lives comfortably. Here, Socrates goes too far, but
there is much in the view that the villain who appears to flourish as the green bay tree is not

3. really happy. A view forcefully put by the late Phillipa Foot and with which I have much
sympathy. Here we hold, with Plato, that the ruthless, wealthy mobster, surrounded by minders,
forever alert for attempts to deceive, ruin or kill him, is ignorant of what constitutes real
happiness.
3. Acting immorally is irrational.
This is one strand in the above eudaimonic argument, but is a view particularly held by Kant: the
moral law is what we legislate for ourselves as rational autonomous beings, so that, as rational
agents, we follow it, and to do otherwise is irrational. The argument essentially is as follows:
P1: my interests matter
P2: others are relevantly similar to me
Concl: others’ interests matter as much as mine
But the amoralist can simply interpret P1 as ‘my interests matter to me’, and P2 as ‘others’
interests matter to them’ which does not entail that others’ interests matter to me. But now, if the
amoralist holds that her pain is really bad (as opposed to bad for her) or resents others for not
helping her, she would show practical irrationality.
In conclusion, there is no knockdown logical argument that can convince a determined egoistic,
amoral, ‘sensible knave’ to be moral. But, here, we are no worse off than trying to convince the
determined sceptic that the external world exists. As Hare said, ‘Ask not ‘how do I convince the
amoralist to be virtuous?’, but rather ‘how do we mostly bring up our children?”. Most of us
accept that we have reason to be moral (as we accept the existence of the external world),
otherwise why would we teach our children to be so. It is the best way to a fulfilled life, though
bad luck can ruin things, and avoids practical irrationality that intellectually honest persons
would wish to avoid.
How should we to be moral?
My ideas about morality are simple. I believe that morality comes from human emotions, and we
use our logic to come up with systems that help us out when our emotions get confusing. A lot of
people have come up with a lot of moral systems through the ages. Which one is right?
First I wanted to tell about some systems that I have used while coming up with mine.
1. Utilitarianism
Utilitarian morality says that we should strive toward the greatest good for the greatest number
of people. A moral act is an act that results in happiness for as many people as possible. It’s a
practical, civic-minded morality. On the other hand, it also says that the moral thing to do is
sacrifice an individual when it will result in happiness for a greater number of people, and that

4. doesn’t feel right to me. Individuals can sacrifice themselves for everyone else — that’s noble —
but they should never be sacrificed against their will. Individuals are more valuable than that.
I also don’t like that consequences are the ultimate determination of morality. In this system, it
doesn’t matter what you intended to do; all that matters is what happens as a result of what you
did. An act is moral if it results in goodness and immoral if it results in badness. This doesn’t
work, because we can’t read the future and we don’t have control over everything. Things go
wrong. That doesn’t make us bad people. I think that if you have good intentions and try your
best, you are acting morally, even if something external messes it up and the consequences turn
out to be bad.
2. The categorical imperative
Since I think that individuals are valuable and should not be sacrificed against their will for the
greater good, it makes sense that I’ve also been a Kantian. Immanuel Kant thought that morality
was based on logic, not emotion, and he came up with a universal principle called the categorical
imperative which says that an act is moral when you would will for everyone to be required to do
the same thing.
In this system, an act becomes immoral because it’s illogical. If everyone was required to steal,
then the idea of personal property would become meaningless, and stealing (taking someone’s
personal property) couldn’t exist, so stealing is logically inconsistent and is therefore immoral.
This system also requires that every person be treated as an end in themselves, never a means to
an end, and an imaginary utopia where this idea is practiced universally is called the kingdom of
ends.
The reason why I’m not a Kantian anymore is fairly obvious if you read my post about the
metaphysics of morality: I think morality is emotional, not logical. The problem with
rationalizing morality is that it’s hard to apply it practically. The famous example that Kant
brought up himself is if a murderer comes to your door and asks you where your friend is, it’s
your duty to tell him the truth because lying is immoral. That would not feel right to me. I’m sure
there’s some logical way to get around this, but fundamentally I think it’s incorrect that lying is
always immoral. Just like I think stealing is not always immoral. Sometimes it feels wrong and
sometimes it feels right, and that’s how I decide what to do.
I do, however, agree that individuals must be treated as ends rather than means. I think every
individual is valuable and that every moral system should have that as a foundation. Even those
who commit the most heinous crimes are valuable and have the potential to do good things. I’ve
never met anyone whom I believed did not have the potential to do good things. Have you?

5. 3. Suffering and compassion
Buddhism explains pretty neatly why people who have the potential to do good things don’t
always do them. You see, everyone is suffering. To be alive is to be dying and to experience loss,
and that takes a heavy toll. The Buddhist answer to this is to minimize our desires, our
attachment to the outcome of things, and our ignorance, because only when you see the world for
what it is and are not swayed by it will you stop suffering.
The nonviolence and general compassion of Buddhism drew me in, though I ultimately drifted
away again after discovering that I could not accept some of the metaphysical ideas that underpin
the whole thing, such as karma. I still like to remind myself now and then that everyone is
suffering, though. If I can keep that in mind, it’s much easier to treat people well.
In my new job I work with foster kids, and in my training we learned that a helpful thing to keep
in mind is that every time the kids act out, they are trying to meet their needs. They may not
know how to do it in the safest and most appropriate way, but that is their goal. When I heard
this, it occurred to me that people outside the foster system are doing this as well. Whenever
people hurt each other, they are trying to meet their own needs and just don’t know how else to
do it. They might need to feel loved, so they create drama to see how their loved ones react. They
might need to feel safe, so they declare war on another country. They might be full of anger and
need to get it out somehow, so they kill someone. Let’s be compassionate and, if we can, help
meet each other’s needs — or at least keep in mind what’s happening and avoid causing more
suffering than is already there.
4. The Wiccan Rede
I’ve read less about the Wiccan Rede than the other systems here, but I like what I’ve read. The
Wiccan Rede is this: “An it harm none, do what thou wilt.” It could be read as “As long as
you’re not harming anyone, feel free to do whatever you want,” but from what I understand,
there is a certain ethical imperative in there as well. It’s more like, “As long as you’re not
harming anyone, you must follow your will.” I might be wrong about this, but I hope not,
because I think this is a fascinating way to look at ethics.
I don’t look at ethics in the same way, though. I consider ethics and morality to be different;
ethics is about how to live a good life in general, and morality is specifically about how to treat
each other fairly. Morality is the bare minimum of what we must do to treat each other fairly, so
in my opinion, following our will is above and beyond that and falls into the realm of ethics. I
don’t think that ethics includes any imperatives. It’s more about suggestions and advice.
Someone who doesn’t follow their own will is probably not going to be all that happy, but I
wouldn’t consider them immoral. This is a post about morality, so my ideas about living a good
life will have to wait for another time.

6. I adopted the Wiccan Rede for only a short time, and the reason I liked it was because of its
focus on not causing harm. This makes sense to me as a moral principle. It’s the baseline, the
most essential duty we all have to each other. If you do nothing else, avoid causing harm. The
thing is that we also can’t just sit back and allow harm to happen, because apathy is not moral —
it’s amoral. If you have the ability to alleviate harm, even if it’s not caused by you, I think it’s a
moral duty to do so. Maybe this is just being nitpicky with the wording, but I’d rather come up
with my own specific wording to make sure it’s exactly what I want to say.
5. The Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule
Most people have heard of this one: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If
you wouldn’t like something done to you, then don’t do it to anyone else. I used to use it because
it’s a helpful guideline to imagine yourself in someone else’s place and try to think of what you
would like in that situation.
I find this to be flawed, though, because it doesn’t account for individual differences. Something
that makes you happy might make someone else miserable. I want to avoid making people
miserable even if it’s an accident. Pace and Kyeli Smith find the same problem with the Golden
Rule, so they offer the Platinum Rule, which is: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto
them.”
That’s better, but I’m still not comfortable using it as my moral system when my emotions are
unclear and I need some logical guidance. We can’t always know what people want, and we
can’t always ask them directly, so there needs to be some rule for what to do when we can’t
directly find out what that person wants.
And my system is…
Keep in mind that everyone is suffering and that every individual is valuable and worthy of
kindness, including yourself. Do not cause more harm. Alleviate harm wherever it is in your
power. For extra credit, cause happiness wherever it is in your power.
There is one element to my system that I didn’t cover yet, and that is “including yourself”. That’s
an important detail. It’s like they say in the safety information on airplanes: if the oxygen masks
come down, put your own mask on first and then help other people with theirs. Because you’re
no help to anyone if you pass out. In order to be kind to other people, we must first be kind to
ourselves
When I’m struggling morally, I bring this system to mind and it makes my decision easier.
Naturally, it doesn’t necessarily make acting upon my decision any easier.

7. Difference between Islamic Ethics and Secular Ethics
As I look back on this post I think it important to note that it was written in response to a
religious bigot who made the claims I discuss as examples as well as the claim that there was no
rights issue at stake in same sex marriage because “gays have the same rights as everyone else:
Marry someone of the opposite sex”. The sole justification for these claims turned out to be
certain key Al-Quran’s verses.
I sometimes hear people say that they don’t see how people could be ethical if they are not
religious. This is, of course, quite absurd. Reason is just as good at ferreting out the ethical truth
as any revelation. It may take a little more work but it is well worth the effort. In fact it seems
that there is a similar kind of charge to be made against the religious ethicist. The religious
ethicist is one who simply appeals to some scripture as evidence for the morality or immorality
of some action. Thus, as in my recent encounter with the religious right, someone who thinks
that homosexuality is immoral simply because it says in the Islamist’s Quran that Allah doesn’t
like it is a religious ethicist in my sense.
When these kinds of people say that something is wrong they do not really understand why it is
wrong. This is a corollary of the Euthyphro question. Either God has no reason for commanding
it and so it is arbitrary as to why he commanded this specific action and thus there is no way to
understand why it is wrong or there is a reason he commanded it and the religious person is
ignorant of that reason (since God never tells us the reasons for his commands).
When the secular person says that something is wrong (and if they are a morally responsible
person) then they must have a reason for thinking that it is wrong other than an authority figure.
This involves doing some actual thinking, applying an ethical theory, putting oneself in the
others place, etc. This is a lot more work than simply appealing to some book. The result of this
is that the religious ethicist ends up saying very strange things.
So, to take our earlier example, in my recent debate with the ARZ/B the first move made was
question whether or not gays could make acceptable parents. This person said that they could
NEVER provide a mother and a father to a child. I disagreed. Gay couples are capable of
providing everything that straight couples do (with the exception of being genetically
males/female but that is irrelevant). Of course when I make this point and there is no rational
response to be made the real motivation for this belief becomes apparent; the Bible dictates a
male/female parental unit. But, besides being commanded in your Holy scriptures there is no
rational reason for thinking that gays can’t provide parents for children.
To further illustrate this point, when I compare gay rights to the other civil rights movements in
history (women, blacks, migrant workers) I sometimes get the response that skin color is not
morally relevant but sexual preference is. But why is this the case? What is it that makes sexual
preference a morally relevant factor? Here is a reason why it is not: these people have no control
over their sexual preference. True some people do choose to become homosexual (maybe

8. Lindsey Lohan) but the vast majority of them are naturally that way. Check your own experience
to see that this is true. I am straight, but I never chose to be that way. At the appropriate age I
began to notice and be attracted to and made nervousby women, but this isn’ttrue for everyone.
Now, of course some sexual preferences are morally relevant (pedephilia for example) but this is
because of another factor (lack of consent, abuse of trust).
Now, please bear in mind that I make a distinction between religious beliefs based solely on
dogma and theistic beliefs based on reason. If a person believes in God and uses reason to
confirm God’s revelation then I have no quarrel with you. But such a person cannot object to gay
unions! For as we have seen, there is no reason to forbid them other than the Holy scriptures but
for the theistic person reason trumps the scriptures.
At any rate what the secular and theistic ethicist have in common is a commitment to reason as a
source of moral knowledge and to a true understanding of moral issues. This is something the
religious ethicist lacks and is the source of all of the very poor arguments they usually give.
I have also wondered about this. A large part of moral reasoning involves putting yourself in the
place of the other and ‘seeing things from their point of view’. But in the case of people with
homophobia it would be very difficult to imagine how they would feel if they were gay and in
love and wanted to be married. Perhaps this explains why they try to deny there is a rights issue
here.