The Source of Morality

The phenomenon of morality is one of the most important elements distinguishing humans from other living creatures. In other words, when morality is discussed, a strictly human condition is definitely being referred to. Moral action, both as a sentiment and as a conscious behavior, is an attitude belonging to humans. Despite this indisputable truth, it cannot be said that there is complete agreement on the fundamental principles and references upon which morality is based. Different definitions are made not only regarding the source of morality but even regarding the meaning of this concept.

Throughout human history, three fundamental theses have emerged regarding the source of morality:

1. The first of these theses is that of religions, which accept morality both in terms of human creation, nature, or the laws of fitrah (innate disposition), and in terms of revelation-based principles and rules sent through prophets.

1. The second thesis comprises different philosophical doctrines that address morality with reference to reason, viewing it as both a metaphysical and a practical human phenomenon.

1. The third thesis consists of anthropological and sociological theories developed on the social dimension of morality.

Before examining these three theses, let us look at the definitions made regarding the concept of morality: First of all, it should not be overlooked that morality (ahlak) is an Arabic concept and is laden with a meaning directly related to the religion of Islam. In this sense, morality implies that a human being should possess a creation oriented toward a specific purpose and maintain a corresponding integrity of feelings, thoughts, and actions (amal). Accordingly, the primary goal of the religion of Islam is to establish a perfect moral system and ensure that people live a life appropriate to it. In line with this purpose, a perfect example of morality is constantly emphasized in the Qur’an—the source of Islam—and in the behaviors of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

In dictionaries, the concept of morality (ahlak) appears as the plural of the word hulk. Hulk means disposition, character, nature, creation, behavior, attitudes, and stances. Terminologically, it expresses a person’s innate or acquired mental and spiritual states, as well as the good and bad attitudes and actions arising from these states. Accordingly, the word ahlak in Arabic carries both a philosophical and a sociological meaning. That is, the phenomenon of morality possesses both a feature belonging to an immutable creation and a transformation it undergoes over time. In this sense, it can be said that an understanding of morality specific particularly to the religion of Islam is inherently embedded within the concept.

In Western languages, the concept of morality is used in two different forms: ethics and morals (moral). The Greek concept of “ethics” comes from the word ethos. Rather than being an exact equivalent of morality, this concept is actually a general name for the philosophies formulated on the subjects of morality. Therefore, while morality in the religious sense refers to a specific set of rules accepted in a society, directly or indirectly of divine origin, ethics as a branch of philosophy seeks to find rational, logical, and theoretical grounds for analyzing moral concepts. For this reason, different understandings of morality emerge according to different philosophical disciplines.

As for the term moral, derived from a Latin word, it is more closely related to the historical and cultural dimension of morality. That is, the concept of moral denotes behaviors, habits, customs, or traditions. Therefore, the word moral in Western languages has a largely social content. Here, the meaning carried by the word generally expresses the value judgments and “rules of life” to which societies adhere. Now, the philosophical, social, and religious sources of morality will be examined below.

1- The Source of Morality According to Philosophers

Throughout human history, the problem of morality has been among both the theoretical and practical subjects of philosophy. From a theoretical perspective, conscience—which enables a person to reckon with themselves—continues to be one of the unresolved problems of moral philosophy. The majority of people, without questioning why certain behaviors are designated as good or bad, adopt the behaviors demanded by society as good and those not demanded as bad, and strive to practice them. Philosophers, however, resort to the guidance of reason in this matter, just as they do in judgments of knowledge, existence, and aesthetics. They do not immediately accept a judgment as true unless it is clearly, explicitly, and consistently enlightened by reason.

At the center of all of Socrates’ struggles is living on the basis of truth and virtue as a moral principle. His student Plato writes down these principles—for which Socrates sacrificed his life—down to the finest detail in order to sustain them and carry them into the future. Socrates’ frequently repeated saying, “Man, know thyself!”, explains the importance of a person recognizing themselves. As understood from this, the ultimate measure of everything is human nature or the human soul. According to Socrates’ student Plato, there are three fundamental emotions-dispositions in the human soul: wisdom, courage, and temperance. However, what can truly establish the balance among these three is the virtue of justice. To the extent that a balance can be established among these three emotions in a person, and conflicts among them prevented, that person is just. While justice is realized in this manner with respect to the individual, in society it is realized when administrators, producers, and protectors each fulfill their respective duties.

According to Plato’s student Aristotle, man is not only a thinking and social being, but also a being whose goal is the highest good and happiness. Therefore, every craft, every investigation, every action aims at some good. As a second step, Aristotle attempts to determine the highest good and calls it happiness. Thus, happiness—which is the goal of actions—appears as an end in itself and as something self-sufficient. If there is harmony among the parts of the body, a person is healthy. If there is a correct relationship among the elements of the human soul—reason, appetite, and will—a person is happy.

Therefore, virtue is the fundamental condition of happiness. If happiness and virtue are among the primary goals of human reason and thought, then the source of the emotions addressing this is also determined to be human reason.

Moving from the Middle Ages to the modern era, one cannot pass without mentioning an important philosopher of this period: René Descartes. Descartes points out that the understanding of morality must be built upon a complete and matured philosophical system. Because “the highest and most perfect morality requires complete knowledge in other sciences and a final degree in wisdom.” Thus, when everything that is possible for a human to know concerning the Soul, God, and Matter is known, philosophy will also have achieved its purpose. Because Wisdom is understood and defined only in this way. Wisdom is likewise something mandatory and necessary for morality.

Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy after Descartes, has thoughts on the nature of morality that are very different from others and from Descartes’ ideas. According to him, in order to demonstrate the nature of morality, one must first start from human moral consciousness and a universally valid moral law. Thus, Kant attempts to show how a metaphysics of morals aiming at the highest good—and metaphysics as a science—is possible. Kant argues that there is a universally valid and necessary knowledge in the field of morality, namely a moral law, and it is this law that determines the rules of “the good” and “good will”.

In conclusion, it can be said that philosophers have tried to establish a moral system that is universally valid for all people, with a reference to reason.

2 – Is Society the Source of Morality?

People living in communities must reflect on their forms of behavior and accept certain moral principles that they can recommend to all people in the world in order to understand one another. Therefore, every society has developed certain moral rules through trial and error during its historical practices. They have attributed the quality of “good” to behaviors beneficial to society and “bad” to harmful ones. From this perspective, the practical aspect of the moral problem, which is directly related to life, is inside our lives at all times and in all places. Therefore, morality, as a social and cultural phenomenon, also constitutes an area of interest for the science of sociology.

Starting from the 19th century, sociologists have addressed the moral rules valid in social life in accordance with a positivist approach. Established in line with this perspective as a sub-discipline of sociology, the sociology of morality examines the source and emergence of moral value judgments as a social and cultural institution, the factors determining these rules, how moral rules differ from society to society, and how they undergo change over time. Indeed, sociologists who examine the sociology of morality in detail as a subject accept that all values, primarily morality and religion, actually emerge during the practical life of society.

Approached from another angle, the relationship between religious rules and moral rules is also addressed by sociology. From this perspective, moral rules cause different religions or religious rules to emerge in societies. Or, according to those approaching from the reverse, during periods when religion loses its normative effectiveness, moral rules in the form of traditions and customs that have transformed into culture take over this role. For example, when the religious command “You shall not lie” transforms into culture, it takes on a social meaning in the form of “lying weakens social status and reduces trustworthiness”. This means that some principles underlying certain political and legal principles are actually based, in the first place, on the principles brought by religions.

As an example of this approach, Bediüzzaman argues that the source of certain social institutions, justice, and order established by mankind without directly relying on religion is actually the religion brought by the prophets. He states this thought with the following expressions:

“…That justice and order are through the admonitions and guidance of the people of religion. And the foundations of that justice and virtue are through the establishments of the prophets. This means that the prophets laid the foundation and the substance. They [others] took hold of that foundation and virtue and did what they did with it.”

Just as Bediüzzaman states that the source of moral principles not directly relying on religious sources is actually religion, he speaks in the same parallel regarding the phenomenon that “just as some people belonging to a religion are not moral, some irreligious people or people who do not accept religious references can be moral”:

“…However, even though the majority of people have voluntarily accepted disbelief and rejected divine proposal [teklif-i İlahi], by taking educational, moral, and other beautiful things filtered from certain types of proposal, they have implicitly and constrainedly accepted those types of proposal. Thus, in this respect, every attribute and every state of a disbeliever is not that of a disbeliever.”

As discussed above, the principles of a secular morality not based on religious beliefs will not actually be completely independent of religion, but will perhaps consist of certain culturalized practices of religion. Tolstoy compares attempting to establish a non-religious moral system to “children who want to replant a plant they like by pulling it out rootless and then planting it in the soil in that state.”

3 – Is Religion the Source of Morality?

The issue of the source of morality has occupied many Islamic scholars and philosophers for centuries and continues to do so today.

In this sense, whether the sole source of morality is religion is among the core topics of debate. Perhaps if there is a subject that precedes moral thought, it is thoughts concerning the divine being. These two ideas have simultaneously remained closely intertwined up to the present day. Therefore, it can be said that the history of morality consists entirely of the story of a close attachment between religious and moral thoughts. This attachment can be seen in the life stories of all prophets and the verses of the heavenly books.

Moving from this, it can be said that religion reveals human values and grants man the will to walk by adhering to those values. Man finds those values in his own essence, within himself. He finds them in his own world, in his own conscience. With the will bestowed by religion, he gains the consciousness and power to put those values into practice. This is essentially where the relationship between religion and morality begins.

According to religions, fundamental articles of faith that must be believed are first set forth. Afterward, fundamental principles and rules regarding how people should live, both as individuals and as communities, are determined. That is, moral principles are derived from the belief principles of religion. However, the development of certain experiences acquired by mankind throughout life adventures on earth, as well as certain emotions and capabilities brought from creation, leaves an open door for the development of certain moral behaviors, provided that they are appropriate to and consistent with the fundamental principles of religion. Accordingly, just as Divine Power sowed this moral sentiment into the humans He created, He also readjusted them with the books He sent, reminded what was forgotten, and announced them by sending books. In other words, moral rules are commands sown by God into human nature and revealed through His books so that people can regulate their lives both as individuals and as society; they are His demands on how people should behave.

Divine revelation stimulates human wills through divine commands in order to evolve the potential emotions of people. These commands are principles that ensure adornment with the actions and emotions required to become a perfect human being. The state of moving away from morality resulting from deviation from this target gives birth to both individual and social restlessness and unhappiness. Looking at the history of religions, we see that prophets were sent not only in terms of belief, but also to communities that had lost their moral measure. Therefore, the most important duty of all prophets is determined as “explaining good morality”. The statement of the Prophet of Islam, “I was sent only to perfect good morality,” emphasizes the importance the religion of Islam attaches to morality.

To emphasize the importance of morality, immediately after ordering belief in the fundamental principles of the religion of Islam, doing good deeds is also recalled. For example, the command “Believe and do good deeds” is repeated at least fifty times in the Qur’an. These verses make a qualitative distinction between religion and moral behavior; yet they also demand that both exist together. Indeed, as stated in some verses, a beautiful moral behavior simultaneously demonstrates religious attachment and faith: “You will not attain righteousness until you spend from that which you love.” Accordingly, divine religions possess both a faith-based and a moral content.

Emphasizing the relationship between faith and morality in various ways, Bediüzzaman views the concept of edep (courtesy/decency), which he associates with morality, as a totality of behavior dominating the entire life. Indeed, with his statement, “The Sunnah of the Prophet [Sünnet-i Seniyye] is edep; there is no matter of it that does not have a light and an edep under it,” he emphasizes that the essence of the Sunnah—which is the application of the Qur’an to life—consists of edep and morality.

If noted, Bediüzzaman did not say here, “There are many values related to edep in the Sunnah,” but directly expressed that the Sunnah completely and entirely consists of edep. This expression resembles Aisha’s statement when asked about the morality of the Prophet, meaning, “His morality is the Qur’an.” Here too, Aisha did not say, “His morality resembles the Qur’an,” but reported that it is directly the Qur’an itself. Undoubtedly, this situation requires possessing noble character (ahlak-ı hamide) in every aspect and being clothed in morality with all limbs.

On the other hand, Bediüzzaman clarified edep in the Sunnah by saying, “The edep in the Sunnah is to adopt an attitude of pure edep within the boundaries of that Glorious Maker [Sânii Zülcelâl].” It is understood from this that what he means by edep is to act as if seeing Allah at every moment, and thus to perform servitude in the quality of ihsan (perfection/mindfulness), with the awareness of being under the surveillance of Allah the Almighty at every moment. It goes without saying that this will be possible through the maximum application of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and by taking the Prophet as a role model and being moralized with his morality. For all Qur’anic verses and hadiths guide mankind in protecting harmony and balance between pleasure, aesthetic values, and creation, acting with moderation, possessing a firm intellectual foundation and a compassionate heart, and finally, guided by all these, turning toward deeds that will give meaning to life (charitable works). Viewed from this perspective, it would not be an exaggeration to say that “the essence of the Qur’an and Sunnah is moderation and the middle path, away from excess and deficiency.”

Most people cannot easily grasp this ideal middle level. Therefore, there is a need for prophets who show and describe this path to humanity. Since human reason remains limited in comprehending the universal order and harmony, or even if it comprehends, fails to succeed in behaving accordingly, people need a universal law. Such a law can only be the “Law” of One who knows the created universe and the human within it best. And this law is none other than the heavenly scriptures brought to people through the prophets.

On the other hand, although all religious commands and moral rules sent to all societies are not the same, it is seen that there is unity in fundamental principles. Thus, while preventing deviation from the fundamental reference, the freedom of choice and decision bestowed upon humans thanks to partial free will (cüz’i irade) separates them from other living creatures, thereby paving the way for individual and social change and evolution within the historical process. Thus, this bond established between man and his Creator ceases to be a static and deterministic bond. It becomes a continuous process of renewing faith, refreshed constantly through worship and the beauty of morality. In fact, the human soul needs to be continuously nourished by moral perception, through worship and prayer, so that this dynamic bond can be sustained. Worship and prayer both keep faith and moral perception alive and continuously evolve them. This is also the path to becoming a perfect human being.

According to Bediüzzaman, an important reason for the sending of these commands is this: To enable the soul to live within man, three centers loaded with emotions were created in the human body.

1. The first is “the animal appetitive faculty (kuvve-i şeheviye-i behimiye) to attract and allure benefits.” This emotion is found commonly in all animals.

1. The second is “the angelic rational faculty (kuvve-i akliye-i melekiye) to distinguish between benefit and harm, good and bad.” The blessing of intellect, which is a characteristic specific to angels, has also been given to humans and jinn.

1. The third is “the wrathful predatory faculty (kuvve-i sebuiye-i gadabiye) to repel harmful things.” While this feature is present in humans, it is a feature found in a more perfect sense in predatory animals.

Bediüzzaman summarizes and defines the faculties of kuvve-i şeheviye and kuvve-i gadabiye—which he points out as effective sources of morality—as follows:

“The appetitive faculty [kuvve-i şeheviye] is the power to take and acquire useful things such as sexual desire, eating, drinking, sleeping, and speaking. However, this power has three degrees. The degree of deficiency is ‘humud’ (apathy), which is a lack of desire toward appetitive subjects. Such a person has neither lust against the unlawful nor appetite for the lawful. The degree of excess, which is the opposite of deficiency, is being excessively devoted to one’s lust without distinguishing between lawful and unlawful. Such a person has a disposition to trample upon chastity. The middle degree, which is the intermediate rank, is chastity. While a person has lust for what is lawful to him, he has no appetite for the unlawful.”

“The wrathful faculty [kuvve-i gadabiye] is the emotion of rejecting harmful things. The degree of deficiency of this emotion is cowardice; a person possessing such an emotion makes life poisonous for himself by fearing all sorts of trivial things. The degree of excess is ‘tehevvür’ (rashness/fury), which gives the feeling of fearing nothing material or spiritual. It can be said that all despotisms, tyrannies, and dominations are the product of the degree of rashness. The intermediate rank of this emotion is heroism, called ‘şecaat’. A person possessing courage does not hesitate to sacrifice his life not for anything else, but solely for his religious and worldly rights. However, he does not meddle in illegitimate affairs.”

As understood from this, when the degree of excess of the wrathful emotion—which is based on the principle of lawlessness—combines with the degree of excess of the appetitive faculty (kuvve-i şeheviye), which knows no lawful or unlawful, the rights of the innocent, especially the weak, are trampled underfoot, and the chastity of chaste people is defiled.

In accordance with man being the most honorable of creatures (eşref-i mahluk) and a perfect being, these emotions have been restricted by religion and Sharia, but they have not been limited by nature and creation. In other words, the control of these emotions bestowed upon humans is left entirely to human will. If a person cannot maintain the degree we call the “middle limit” (hadd-i vasat) and falls into excess or deficiency, it is clear that they will fall into moral weaknesses.

From such a perspective, the phenomena of faith, worship, and morality are human attitudes and states of mind that are inseparable and must constantly be intertwined. In other words, moral principles have a meaning far beyond being merely abstract commands and rules that people are expected to obey and are threatened with punishment if they do not. In this sense, they are not just externally enforced commands limiting people’s behaviors and perceptions, but deep, conscientious, and living principles of life that show them the way to become perfect, virtuous human beings. Moreover, obeying them is a form of worship. And worship is being in a state that elevates the human soul, develops its potentials, purifies its inclinations, realizes its aspirations, broadens and systematizes its ideas, and limits its appetitive and wrathful emotions.

The emotions leading to this adventure of human evolution are set forth by Bediüzzaman as follows: If this moral emotion had not been given to man, man would have remained an animal. Because the sole element distinguishing mankind from animals is not intellect and thinking. Because with these capacities, humans may perhaps be superior to animals only in degree.

Humans have other capacities that ensure they are different from and superior to animals. These are, along with intellect and thinking, the ability to distinguish the good and beautiful from the bad and ugly—namely, the faculty of discrimination (temyiz).

The faculty of discrimination is related to partial free will and morality. Thanks to this feature, man has been held accountable through religious proposals (teklif) and charged with distinguishing right from wrong and beauty from ugliness. This is why, if there were no religious proposal, the emotions potentially placed in the human soul could not develop. Accordingly, along with the proposal emotion that enables man to emerge from the degree of a biological entity—an animal—and rise to humanity, the human soul is also important. Because in order for man to evolve in terms of humanity, achieving a balance between body and soul is also necessary.

Thus, certain emotions and dispositions placed in human nature can develop and continue in a balanced manner. Otherwise, since man cannot balance these emotions, he will disrupt both his personal life and social life.

Thanks to the balancing of these emotions, man will ensure balance and rectitude in his personal life, and justice in his social life.