Agree to Differ

[

] 58

universal normative truths that are suitable for guiding the lives

of all people at all times is simply absurd.

Moral universalists hold the opposite view, that there is a

single and timeless ethical standard. Some system of ethics

applies universally to all people regardless of culture, envi-

ronment or historical era. The same standards hold true for

someone in China, Spain or Paraguay. They were the same

for the people of Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe as they

are for us living today and as they will continue to be for all

times. What was evil in the past will remain evil in the future.

Moral laws do not change with the times. Ethical standards

are neither ‘Eastern’ nor ‘Western’.

The idea of moral universalism can be traced back to the

revealed religions, especially those religions which claim to

have a universal message. The philosopher Hunter Mead

expresses this idea in the context of Western Christianity,

explaining that the idea that there is a single deity who

governs the affairs of the world which He created is the

basis for Western religious thinking. This idea has also been

defended on the basis of logic. This approach was taken by

Kant, who may well be the most famous of all philosophers of

ethics. He believed that analysis can consistently demonstrate

that the violation of moral law is simultaneously the violation

of logic. Anti-ethical behaviour is always contradictory.

One of the examples that Kant gives to illustrate this point

is making a promise. When a person makes a promise that he

has no intention of fulfilling, his behaviour is morally wrong.

This is because his behaviour is based simultaneously upon

two contradictory principles. The first of these principles is that

people should believe promises. The fact that I have broken my

promise expresses another principle – that an individual has the

right to break his promise. This is the case as long as we accept

that moral law applies to everyone. However, if every person who

makes a promise breaks it, then no one would believe a promise.

This results in a principle that no one should believe promises,

which is directly contradictory to our first principle.

The Islamic perspective

As Muslims, our intellectual outlook supports the existence of

shared values. The basis for this belief is as follows:

First, Islam establishes the idea of absolute equality between

all human beings and that they are descended from a common

ancestor. They have one Lord and they share one father. Allah

says: “O humankind! We have indeed created you from a man

and a woman and made you into nations and tribes to know

one another” (Qur’an 49:13). The Prophet Muhammad said:

“O humankind! Your Lord is one Lord, and you have one

father. All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust.

The noblest of you is the most God-fearing. No Arab has and

superiority over a non-Arab, no non-Arab has any superiority

over an Arab, no black person has any superiority over a white

person, and no white person has any superiority over a black

person – superiority is only through piety.”

Second, Islam asserts that all human beings are created with a

natural inclination towards goodness, towards truth and towards

faith in Allah. Allah says: “So set thy purpose [O Muhammad]

for religion as a man by nature upright – the nature [framed] of

Allah, in which He hath created the human being. There is no

altering [the laws of] Allah’s creation” (Qur’an 30:30).

No matter how protracted and never-ending the debate

might be among philosophers about whether moral values

are universal or relative, common sense tells us that shared

values do exist. The best proofs for this are the human facul-

ties of reason (which Descartes considered the greatest thing

Image: Forum for promoting Peace in Muslim Societies

Spiritual leaders unite against extremism: convincing others of the ways of goodness is the most important humanitarian issue

gree

iffer