❀ Intellectual Analysis of Non-Religious Sources of Morality ❀
By Dr. Zahid Mughal
In contemporary times, many anti-religious thinkers, rationalists, and those with secular worldviews argue that morality—ideas of good and evil or essential and non-essential values—should not be derived from revealed scriptures. In their view, religious morality is dogmatic, irrational, or based on unverifiable divine knowledge.
This article examines the foundations, conceptual problems, and internal contradictions of non-religious sources of morality.
Fundamental Difference Between Science and Morality:
Example:
If it is said: “Consuming hashish can cause death”, this descriptive fact cannot automatically lead to the conclusion: “Hashish should not be consumed”, unless we introduce a normative claim such as “Human life ought to be preserved.”
❖ Conclusion:
Science cannot answer moral questions like “Should one kill a human being or not?” Hence, making science the foundation of morality is a fallacy.
Assumption of Historical Consciousness:
Some claim that human history and collective experience teach us what is right or wrong. This idea is based on assumptions such as:
Internal Contradictions:
① Myth of Progressive History:
History does not always progress morally.
② Multiplicity of Historical Theories:
Different philosophers (e.g., Hegel, Marx, Spencer) have different views of history.
A single act may be moral to one and immoral to another.
❖ Conclusion:
Historical consciousness is neither absolute nor internally consistent. Hence, it cannot serve as a sound basis for morality.
Two Interpretations of Human Nature:
Problems:
❖ Conclusion:
It is illogical to base morality on human nature, because there's no objective standard for what “real” human nature is—claims will always differ.
Limitations of Reason:
Two types of reasoning:
① Substantive Reason (جوہری عقل):
Ability to determine truth, good and evil, purpose of life.
② Instrumental Reason (آلاتی عقل):
Ability to find means to an already defined goal.
Issue:
Reason can help achieve pre-defined moral goals, but cannot define morality itself.
❖ Conclusion:
Reason, on its own, cannot determine good or evil.
Building a moral framework purely on reason is therefore irrational.
In the 18th century, atheist philosophers rejected religion, claiming that truth, meaning, and morality would be redefined through human reason.
However, after two centuries of philosophical efforts, the conclusion is clear:
Human reason alone cannot fully comprehend truth, justice, or meaning.
Death is near, and every soul is accountable before God.
The door of repentance is open, and the Merciful Lord awaits those who return to Him.
By Dr. Zahid MughalModern Opponents of Religion and Their View on Morality
In contemporary times, many anti-religious thinkers, rationalists, and those with secular worldviews argue that morality—ideas of good and evil or essential and non-essential values—should not be derived from revealed scriptures. In their view, religious morality is dogmatic, irrational, or based on unverifiable divine knowledge.
This article examines the foundations, conceptual problems, and internal contradictions of non-religious sources of morality.
❶ Morality Derived from Science
Fundamental Difference Between Science and Morality:
- Science deals with “what is”
- Morality addresses “what ought to be”
It is logically invalid to derive ought from is, since they belong to entirely different categories.
Example:
If it is said: “Consuming hashish can cause death”, this descriptive fact cannot automatically lead to the conclusion: “Hashish should not be consumed”, unless we introduce a normative claim such as “Human life ought to be preserved.”
❖ Conclusion:
Science cannot answer moral questions like “Should one kill a human being or not?” Hence, making science the foundation of morality is a fallacy.
❷ Morality Derived from Historical Process
Assumption of Historical Consciousness:
Some claim that human history and collective experience teach us what is right or wrong. This idea is based on assumptions such as:
- History is a continuous, linear process that always moves forward.
- Human consciousness morally evolves over time.
Internal Contradictions:
① Myth of Progressive History:
History does not always progress morally.
- Greek nudity in public games ended in Christian eras but returned in modern Western societies.
- The Arab practice of burying daughters alive ceased, but a new form reappeared through abortion.
② Multiplicity of Historical Theories:
Different philosophers (e.g., Hegel, Marx, Spencer) have different views of history.
A single act may be moral to one and immoral to another.
❖ Conclusion:
Historical consciousness is neither absolute nor internally consistent. Hence, it cannot serve as a sound basis for morality.
❸ Morality Based on the Concept of Human Nature
Two Interpretations of Human Nature:
- Descriptive (Positive): Human capacity to do certain things (e.g., love, lie, murder).
- Normative: Human nature as a source of ought—truthfulness is right, lying is wrong.
Problems:
- How do we determine what human nature really is?
- There's no recorded history of humans before society to define an “original” human nature.
❖ Conclusion:
It is illogical to base morality on human nature, because there's no objective standard for what “real” human nature is—claims will always differ.
❹ Morality Derived from Reason (Rationalism)
Limitations of Reason:
Two types of reasoning:
① Substantive Reason (جوہری عقل):
Ability to determine truth, good and evil, purpose of life.
② Instrumental Reason (آلاتی عقل):
Ability to find means to an already defined goal.
Issue:
Reason can help achieve pre-defined moral goals, but cannot define morality itself.
❖ Conclusion:
Reason, on its own, cannot determine good or evil.
Building a moral framework purely on reason is therefore irrational.
The Rebellion of Modern Man: A Bitter Reality
In the 18th century, atheist philosophers rejected religion, claiming that truth, meaning, and morality would be redefined through human reason.
However, after two centuries of philosophical efforts, the conclusion is clear:
Human reason alone cannot fully comprehend truth, justice, or meaning.
Final Reminder: Accountability Before God
Death is near, and every soul is accountable before God.
The door of repentance is open, and the Merciful Lord awaits those who return to Him.
