What are some distinctions between Islamic ethics and secular ethics?

Answer 1

As with many other groups, some people who practice Islam are very insular. They feel that they need to treat each other well, but anyone outside the group can be treated poorly. This is common to many religions, but is definitely not universally true, nor is it unseen in secularism.

For instance, people in a country or even a state, area, or family, feel that they can treat people in their own group well and others as they please. You see this with Republicans and Democrats, with rich and poor, with men and women. There is heavy Nationalism involved with the way we look at Immigration, and if you root for a different team or even sport, you may not get the time of day.

Racial disparity causes this as well. Many people, if they can get away with it, will persecute people who are different from themselves. This isn't just a failing of Islam. This is a failing of all of us, as a human race.

Answer 2

There are several key and important distinctions between Islamic Ethics and Secular Ethics.

1) Deontology vs. Consequentialism: Probably the most fundamental difference between Islamic Ethics and Secular Ethics is that the Islamic Ethics is a deontological ethical system while most forms of Secular Ethics are described in consequentialist terms. In deontology, whether an action is right or wrong is based on the nature of the action itself. Conversely, in consequentialism, whether an action is right or wrong depends on what consequences will arise from the action. A perfect example of the difference between deontology and consequentialism is on the "ticking-time-bomb torture scenario". According to the anti-torture deonotologists, torture is an evil in and of itself and cannot be performed. According to consequentialists, if torturing the terrorist is likely to save the lives of hundreds of people, that positive consequence can outweigh the negative consequence can outweigh the hurt and pain inflicted by way of torture.

In Islamic Ethics, actions are good or evil because God declared it to be so (or the scholars/jurists argue that God or Muhammad declared it to be so by analogy or comparison) and human perspectives on these moral values are irrelevant. In Secular Ethics, actions are good or evil by comparing them to values that should be maximized or minimized in the consequences. Islamic Jurists will often argue that Secular Ethics is immoral because under Secular Ethics, as long as the balance is achieved, thoroughly immoral acts can be performed. (A famous incident in this vein was when Atheist and Secular Ethicist Lawrence Krauss justified conditions under which incest could be permissible.) Conversely, Secular Ethical leaders will argue that Islamic Ethics is completely inflexible and will not respond to new evidence that will change moral opinions. (A famous issue in this vein is the continued insistence by Islamic Jurists that homosexuality is immoral, even though science has shown that homosexuality is a natural part of epigenetic human development.)

2) Equality of People: Secular Ethics is based on the fundamental principle that all individuals are valued equally by the ethical apparatus, without regard to any unchanging characteristics. For example, if a gay person murders a straight person, it is no more or less criminal than if a straight person murders a straight person, a gay person murders a gay person, or a straight person murders a gay person. The only differences that can apply are situational. It is permitted to use violence against a person resisting arrest to a degree not permitted in general interpersonal interaction.

Conversely, Islam tends to split along three lines on this issue. (1) There is a modern view that all people should be treated as equals and be subject to secular law while demonstrating Islamic Ethics as an interpersonal relationship mechanism. Most Islamic Apologists take this tone. (2) There is a prevalent view that the law and ethical systems should be religiously segregated, namely that Muslims should be subject to Islamic Ethical Norms and Laws while Non-Muslims should be subject to Secular Laws. (However, this view has never been successfully developed with any clarity for what Secular Laws Non-Muslims should be subject to and all Muslim Apostates – like Ex-Muslim Atheists and Ex-Muslim Christians – are usually considered Muslims under this rubric, even though they would personally reject this. (3) Finally, the most historically consistent view, and the one that seems most supported by the Qur’an, but especially the Hadiths and early Islamic Jurists, is the idea that Muslims are superior to other Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.) and those Monotheists are superior to Polytheists and Atheists. There are a number of onerous regulations that Non-Muslims had to follow to show their lesser status. Additionally, their lives were seen to be less valuable, as indicated by the lower amount of blood money due to their families if they were murdered. (For example, if a Muslim was killed, the murderer’s family could pay a certain amount to the victim’s family in lieu of his punishment. If a Christian was killed, the amount that the murderer’s family would have to pay would be half as much as in the case of the Muslim.)

3) Precendential Case Law vs. Amendable Statute: In Islamic Law, no previously decided ethical decision can be undone and current decisions must be made in accordance with previous precedent. The only way of “removing” an ethical belief would be to place it under a conditional moratorium. This means that while the act would not change from immoral to moral, the punishment mechanism would not come into play because the requirements to make the case are too onerous for the prosecutor. Secular Ethics allows complete replacement and alteration of ethical precepts if conditions warrant.

Answer 3

There are several key and important distinctions between Islamic Ethics and Secular Ethics.

1) Deontology vs. Consequentialism:
Probably the most fundamental difference between Islamic Ethics and Secular Ethics is that the Islamic Ethics is a deontological ethical system while most forms of Secular Ethics are described in consequentialist terms. In deontology, whether an action is right or wrong is based on the nature of the action itself. Conversely, in consequentialism, whether an action is right or wrong depends on what consequences will arise from the action. A perfect example of the difference between deontology and consequentialism is on the "ticking-time-bomb torture scenario". According to the anti-torture deonotologists, torture is an evil in and of itself and cannot be performed. According to consequentialists, if torturing the terrorist is likely to save the lives of hundreds of people, that positive consequence can outweigh the negative consequence can outweigh the hurt and pain inflicted by way of torture.

In Islamic Ethics, actions are good or evil because God declared it to be so (or the scholars/jurists argue that God or Muhammad declared it to be so by analogy or comparison) and human perspectives on these moral values are irrelevant. In Secular Ethics, actions are good or evil by comparing them to values that should be maximized or minimized in the consequences. Islamic Jurists will often argue that Secular Ethics is immoral because under Secular Ethics, as long as the balance is achieved, thoroughly immoral acts can be performed. (A famous incident in this vein was when Atheist and Secular Ethicist Lawrence Krauss justified conditions under which incest could be permissible.) Conversely, Secular Ethical leaders will argue that Islamic Ethics is completely inflexible and will not respond to new evidence that will change moral opinions. (A famous issue in this vein is the continued insistence by Islamic Jurists that homosexuality is immoral, even though science has shown that homosexuality is a natural part of epigenetic human development.)

2) Equality of People:
Secular Ethics is based on the fundamental principle that all individuals are valued equally by the ethical apparatus, without regard to any unchanging characteristics. For example, if a gay person murders a straight person, it is no more or less criminal than if a straight person murders a straight person, a gay person murders a gay person, or a straight person murders a gay person. The only differences that can apply are situational. It is permitted to use violence against a person resisting arrest to a degree not permitted in general interpersonal interaction.

Conversely, Islam tends to split along three lines on this issue. (1) There is a modern view that all people should be treated as equals and be subject to secular law while demonstrating Islamic Ethics as an interpersonal relationship mechanism. Most Islamic Apologists take this tone. (2) There is a prevalent view that the law and ethical systems should be religiously segregated, namely that Muslims should be subject to Islamic Ethical Norms and Laws while Non-Muslims should be subject to Secular Laws. (However, this view has never been successfully developed with any clarity for what Secular Laws Non-Muslims should be subject to and all Muslim Apostates – like Ex-Muslim Atheists and Ex-Muslim Christians – are usually considered Muslims under this rubric, even though they would personally reject this. (3) Finally, the most historically consistent view, and the one that seems most supported by the Qur’an, but especially the Hadiths and early Islamic Jurists, is the idea that Muslims are superior to other Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.) and those Monotheists are superior to Polytheists and Atheists. There are a number of onerous regulations that Non-Muslims had to follow to show their lesser status. Additionally, their lives were seen to be less valuable, as indicated by the lower amount of blood money due to their families if they were murdered. (For example, if a Muslim was killed, the murderer’s family could pay a certain amount to the victim’s family in lieu of his punishment. If a Christian was killed, the amount that the murderer’s family would have to pay would be half as much as in the case of the Muslim.)

3) Precendential Case Law vs. Amendable Statute:
In Islamic Law, no previously decided ethical decision can be undone and current decisions must be made in accordance with previous precedent. The only way of “removing” an ethical belief would be to place it under a conditional moratorium. This means that while the act would not change from immoral to moral, the punishment mechanism would not come into play because the requirements to make the case are too onerous for the prosecutor. Secular Ethics allows complete replacement and alteration of ethical precepts if conditions warrant.