"Islamophobia"

[Mystic]

Wrong. Here are the thoughts I'm coming up with. We reasoned our morals from analysis. Islam doesn't have justifications for its laws. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if any or all of Islamic morals are correct or not.

This doesn't seem to be true to me. For example, Islam teaches to respect parents. Although there is perhaps a detailed way to analyze why you should respect your parents (in general), I am not convinced, that emotional instinct/intuition doesn't justify our respect to our parents.

In fact, I would say the more you analyze it, the more it goes off tangent from the love we feel in moral acts.

This is why prefer fuzzy type art type morality personally. Your mathematical model of morals make work for you, but perhaps, it may cause you to be ignorant of other moral truths, because morality is not the nature you assume it is. It perhaps is not based on any universal principle that can be stated in language.

But, because of detailed reasoning, we do have of knowing that our morals are correct.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps the more we try to reason morals by analysis, the more far of we go from beauty and sacred nature of it, and end up with a very dry perception of it.

Perhaps we can come up with reasons to justify some morals we already believe in, but the moral perception of it that didn't rely on those justifications and analysis, was more praiseworthy reason to act, and stronger basis to those morals we believe in.

One of the many things you are not sure about.

Well you act sure, but it's true I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that I don't know that I know which seems like a paradox but such is my state of confusion.

Not always - and therefore, no reason why it should be.

I'm not sure they aren't. Is non emotional motivated act something that can be called "good". But even if it's not always, if majority of actions our morally driven, then why doesn't your logic still apply.

And the reason why they should not is...?

Perhaps it kills the beauty of morality, dries up it's ocean, to math

No, I'm basically saying that since their gut instinct was unjustified, they cannot know if their good was actually good or actually bad and therefore they have no position to dictate it to others.

This is what you are assuming. They cannot know if their good is good. But you haven't proven that.

Why would I prove that when I'm stating the opposite? I say that moral truths can be properly basically justified.

Your model made inferences though for every moral principle. That's not properly basic.

Something to be corrected, to be sure.

I dunno. If it's heading towards allowing 20 men marrying 20 women and then stating no one can know that is wrong or disgraceful, it seems rather like corruption of morality then it's perfection.

Yes it is. Try going through my argument again. Take a day or two. Reread it a few times. You'll get it eventually.

I know you feel that way. I will re-read a few times, but you to me are making unproven assertions based on non-sequitur reasoning.

Why do you assume that that choice of value would be outside the purview of morality? Your very choice of values can be immoral as well.

I don't assume that, and I don't see the relevance.

If you appreciate it, then why do you need to be forced?

Because we aren't all "strong" enough to do what is better for ourselves.

You really think you can forcefully educate someone who isn't willing to learn? You are providing an excellent example to the contrary.

There is a will, but the force of education, makes them not have to struggle against laziness, want of playing, wasting time etc..

Did you appreciate it when you were being forced into it?

Yes I did, I understood it was for my good, but it's something else, if I would act according to my own good without force.

Relevance?

Well the well being of people in this case can be more important and valuable then simply giving them a moral choice.

Except, if it is for our benefit, then force should not be necessary.

Well perhaps if we were all Angels that would do the best things in our interest all the time.

Except, they would not definitely want to do anything. You guys have some sot of crystal glass which tells you that they would "definitely want their past selves to wear Hijaab in future" and therefore we are justified in forcing them to do so today?

I don't. I personally am confused about everything right now, from morals to my perception of myself to whether I know there is an eternal being or not.

I however refuse to simply accept western culture and moral sense, because I am confused right now, and think I would be doing the same error when I looked for guidance in Quran and Sunnah.

I also don't feel like I have to be able to rationally explain all my morals, to be allowed to be able to express moral opinion.

My, my. How your imagination runs on? Do you really have so low an opinion of human beings that we just have to allow something to happen for it to become norm?

It's not it must happen or most probably will happen, it's just that it's possible.

It won't. School property, school rules.

They can do it outside of high school, what I mean popular in high school, is that it can be a fun thing that school cullture agrees upon doing.

High school culture is all about being fun and cool, right, very little with being holy and moral.

As you said, the society has an easy way of respecting its own will. They should "guard their gaze" or "avert their eyes" or "look away", if they do not want to look at naked people.

But it makes it very hard upon people. Even the strongest willed men might not be able to resist looking naked women walking in the street if becomes something that is normal.

Actually, it would make sense, if morality actually needed emotion.

But morality does need emotion.

So, it should not be applicable to those who do not appreciate it.

Yes and no. Perhaps a person would steal if there was no consequence by the law. And he wants to steal. But doesn't really know if at the time, he would actually do it.

Therefore, he is not guilty of decision. Sure the honor of not stealing is not really there if he wants to steal, but also the disgrace of the act, is not there, if he doesn't actually go through it.

So wanting would be bad, but not as bad as actually going through it.

You really need society to stop you from waking naked down the streets?

I don't know who I would've been if not the laws and culture I was brought up with. I have no idea.

Personally right now, I wouldn't. If I was Atheist growing up for example, and my group of friends thought it would be cool to walk naked in the streets, and peer pressured me, and the was no rules against it in society, I don't know if I would or would not.

Also, social culture reflects a lot on what is allowed and not allowed. And it has a lot of basis in religion.

Take away religion (sacred basis to morals) and take away consequence....and I don't know what type of society ends up forming in the future.

Believers in God hold morals to be highly sacred, because they believe morality exists in a ultimate exalted form that is worthy to be obeyed.

So what today we feel a lot of shame because of culture of religious people, tommorrow, it can be a lot less.

To be honest, there is a part of what seems a lustful evil part of me that wants people to walk naked in the street and even it for to become a norm.

I don't know we have a lot of inner demons that seem cool to adopt. We are treading dangerous ground these days.

There is part of me that lusts the idea of being in 5 on 5 poly, and I don't know if becomes allowed, and something society doesn't look down upon, if I would do it.

I don't know there is a rebellious part of me that just wants to let go and act wild and just ignore morals and not really care about honour.