Download is there a moral code regardless of time and place?

IS THERE A MORAL CODE REGARDLESS OF TIME AND PLACE?
Dr. Nazım Beratli
From GAU/NORTH CYPRUS
ABSTRACT:
There is no single definition of morality valid for all times and places .
As is known, Immanuel Kant, regarded as a major figure and the turning point for moral principles in
the Western philosophy.
Under this assumption, the principle of Kant's moral action determines not the moral content but the
emphasis in the moral proposition.It's not a secret that Kant quoted this proposition
in question, from Spinoza.On the other hand, prominent thinker of the Frankfurt School, Walter
Benjamin ,transferred the same philosophical impact from Kant, to the left-wing political philosophy.
"Action, that is comply with the norms of morality, is not enough! Principle of action,should also be
made for moral norms !"
This study will draw attention to the connection of ethics with religion.
In this respect, Spinoza's Jewish and Kant's "Christian" cleric personalities does not surprise people.
Interestingly,even though these moral criteria entered in Western Philosophy in 17-18 Century;
feeding from hadiths of Hz. Muhammad all that exists in teachings and practice of Eastern Philosophy
since time immemorial.
“Deeds are according to intentions!"
I must admit ,it was Chalabi Hamdullah from Bektashi dargah who first warned me about it.During
the defense of Shariah court in Tokat 1832, Chalabi, passed the same measures referring of course
not from Kant; but Haci Bektas-i Veli.
Today, we say that morality determined by the time and place but also in all religions, thoughts,
countries, and at times there is a generally accepted principles of morality!
"Morally good it is not enough that it should conform the need to be done for good!"
INTRODUCTION
The issue of morality, as being one of the oldest subjects of philosophy, is obviously put in front of the eyes
of everyone who is interested in morality.
However, without a general definition of morality, a discussion about the issue is probably left unfinished.
Türker Alkan, who has worked enough to write a book about the political morality, says in his book that:
"Morality is the rules concerning the behaviours expected from the members of the society so as to
make the social life possible, consistent, positive and efficient." (Alkan 1993) Thereafter, "political morality
is the norms that are supposed to make the structures, institutions, roles, ideas and actions related to
the political differentiation as well as the social life possible, consistent, positive and efficient." (Alkan)
Morality and ethics are one of the important issues of philosophy and the religion as well. Thus,
may be all of the philosophers have mentioned their own ideas about the subject! In order to discuss
these concepts, I would rather to choose the most famous and authentic one’s of the issue.
DISCUSSION
Classical Greek philosophers, were the first generation who accepted the concepts of the morality
and ethics as a matter of philosophy.
According to Socrates, "virtue is knowledge". Knowledgeable people do not make mistakes
consciously nor act immorally! Aristotle argues that a happy person can be moral as well. And who does his
best is happy according to him. (Alkan)
Plato, "Ethics is a kind of knowledge above the mathematics." Good morals are achieved by being fair and
each person is born with certain innate abilities. And of course those with good morals "are wise
managers"! (Platon 2007, Mattei,2009)
Epicurus' conclusion of "Happy is the one who has morals" is a known idea as well. (Immanuel Kant. 1788)
After centuries, another philosopher from a completely different discipline; Karl. R. Popper says: "... As
Plato pays ... it can never be the morality of the fighters for justice and equal rights ..." Karl Popper has the
opinion that morality of democracy depends especially on "the bloodless change of government". (Popper
2005) Popper’s approximation to the ethics depend on political aspects. But of course the most political
approaching to the concept, belonged to the left wing philosophers.
According to Friedrich Engels: "There are no two people who are morally equal." "And when such
an ideologist constructs morality and law from the concept, or the so-called simplest elements of "society",
instead of from the real social relations of the people round him, what material is then available for this
construction?...first, the meagre residue of real content which may possibly survive in the abstractions from
which he starts; and secondly, the content which our ideologist once more introduces from his own
consciousness! And what does he find in his (own N.B.) consciousness? For the most part, moral and
juridical notions which are a more or less accurate expression...of the social and political relations amidst
which he lives...
...While he thinks he is framing a doctrine of morals and law for all times and for all worlds, he is in
fact only fashioning an image of the conservative or revolutionary tendencies of his day - an image which is
distorted because it has been torn from its real basis and, like a reflection in a concave mirror, is standing
on its head!" (Engels F. 1976)
"What does history of thought prove apart from the metamorphosis of intellectual production
along with materialistic production? Dominant thoughts of each era have always been the thoughts of the
ruling class." "The communist revolution is a radical breaking of the bond with the traditional property
relations. Hence, it is not surprising that it broke all the bonds with the traditional thoughts during the
development period."( Marx K- Engels F. 1976)
Lenin's view of "morality of the old order" of the outlook is a complete break:
"People have always been the victims fooled by the politics. As long as they do not see that the
interests of one or another class lie behind moral, religious, political and social statements, messages and
promises, it will continue like that. As long as they do not see that each old institution survives thanks
to the power of some old ruling classes, those, who want reform and innovation, will be cheated by the
protectors of the old order." "We do not believe in eternal morality and reveal the insincerity of the
introduced stories about the morality." (Lenin V.I. 1979)
On the other hand, another Communist thinker, Antonio Gramsci, has a different approach to
the morality:
"... the Prison Notebooks, contain and integrate ... the meaning. In the pages on behalf of 'The
Modern Prince', ... Gramsci proposes two main themes for the examination of the modern party: One on
the formation of a "common will" (the theme is political leadership) and the other on the formation of a
"moral and intellectual reform" (the theme is cultural leadership). On the meaning of these two different
hegemonies, we insist ... " (Bobbio, Norberto. 1982)
As you can see, for a general transformation of the society, Gramsci predicts a transformation in
two main areas: In the political sphere and in the moral-intellectual sphere! But the point to be
emphasized is that the question "Are there any values that are moral at all times and in all places? "
remains unanswered. What is moral? And indeed, "While he thinks he is framing a doctrine of morals and
law for all times and for all worlds, he is in fact only fashioning an image of the conservative or
revolutionary tendencies of his day - an image which is distorted because it has been torn from its real basis
and, like a reflection in a concave mirror, is standing on its head." Right?
Dostoevsky, in a dialogue from his novel "The Brothers Karamazov";
said "There is a force that endures everything".
What force?
-The force of the Karamazovs ...
- To sink into debauchery, to stifle your soul with corruption, right?
Possibly even that ... but maybe I can escape until my thirties, and then ...
- How can you escape, in what way? That's impossible with your ideas.
-In the Karamazov way again.
- "Everything is lawful", right? So you can do whatever you want? SAYS ... (Dostoyevsky 2001: 173).
When it comes to Dostoevsky's concept of lawful;
"If there is no God, everything is lawful" ...
According to Locke, it is possible to conceive a moral philosophy with rational inferences from the
principles perceived by the senses of perception ...
Indeed, the "morality is personal, it changes depending on the time and social conditions in which we live!"
Is this comment right?
In Western philosophy, in respect of the concept of morality, the "milestone" between all these ideas and
today is Immanuel Kant ...
In the Critique of Practical Reason, he says:
"The method then takes the following course: At first we are only concerned to make the judging of actions
by moral laws a natural employment accompanying all our own free actions, as well as the observation of
those of others, and to make it as it were a habit, and to sharpen this judgement, asking first whether the
action conforms objectively to the moral law, and to what law. And we distinguish the law that merely
furnishes a principle of obligation from that which is really obligatory (leges obligandi a legibus
obligantibus); as, for instance, the law of what men's wants require from me, as contrasted with that which
their rights demand, the latter of which prescribes essential, the former only non-essential duties; and thus
we teach how to distinguish different kinds of duties which meet in the same action.
The second point to which attention must be directed is the question whether the action was also
(subjectively) done for the sake of the moral law, so that it not only is morally correct as a deed, but also,
by the maxim from which it is done, has moral worth as a disposition... Now there is no doubt that this
practice, and the resulting culture of our reason in judging merely of the practical, must gradually produce a
certain interest even in the law of reason, and consequently in morally good actions. "Now it is clear that
those determining principles of the will which alone make maxims properly moral and give them a moral
worth, namely, the direct conception of the law and the objective necessity of obeying it as our duty, must
be regarded as the proper springs of actions, since otherwise legality of actions might be produced, but not
morality of character. (Kant, Immanuel. 1788)
At the beginning of the paragraph above, "in western philosophy" is especially used.Because it is known
that Spinoza has a huge impact on Kant's moral philosophy.
"Spinoza's powerful and logical metaphysical system is partially forgotten because of Leibniz's criticism as
well as development of another empirical philosophy. When it comes to Kant, it is confronted with an
important theoretical intervention. Kant follows a path that problematizes the implicit and explicit
assumptions of this system. He also attempts to invalidate the assumption that reality corresponds or can
correspond to our thoughts by distinguishing categorically ontological and epistemological fields. The
perspective of the pure mind is inaccessible, a view or an information concerning the eternal dimension is
inaccessible. Apart from vicious or unilateral evaluations such as atheist philosopher or lover of God,
Spinoza has influenced many philosophers as ally or opponent beginning from the 18th century. Spinoza
has been taken as interlocutor by affirming or negating. " ( mutlaktoz web site, Spinoza 20014)
"Until Kant and especially Hegel, who managed to recode Protestantism in Western philosophy, overcame
this very unique "Spinoza effect", Spinoza's formula was even able to become an inspiration for poems."
(Baker, Ulus. 2014)
Spinoza's being a Jew theologian and Kant's being a Christian theologian may not be interesting. However,
for example, Walter Benjamin among the Frankfurt School thinkers, quoting from Kant, says "if any action is
to be morally good it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law, but it must also be done for the
sake of the law". "Moral law is the norm of the action not of the content!" he says. (Benjamin, Walter
2013) So if you try to control by putting as many norms as possible, ultimately you can examine the
suitability of the individual's action, not his intension! As a conclusion, and the important thing is the
intention ... " We can say that the second half of the 20th century was remembrance of Spinoza in
theoretical and political ways. Its emergence on the Althusserian line is remarkable. (Although he refuses to
be a structuralist) Althusser, being one of the most interesting names of constructivism and theoreticalpolitical Marxism, is one of the thinkers that found references from Spinozan system on the subjects of
interpellation and structural determinism." Mutlaktoz. Web site 2014)
And it probably would not be odd to accept Spinoza as part of the “Eastern philosophy". Judaism, (although
the thinker was an "excommunicated" Jew, it is known that he completed his education at a synagogue.)
cannot be interpreted as "a philosophy of western culture" for sure!
During the ethics classes with my graduate students, while I was looking for an answer to the question: "Is
ethics really a totality of values (or of worthlessness) depending on time, place and individual? There is
no ethics which is valid forever? ", I thought that I found the answer about Kant and Spinoza that I was
looking for and a booklet passed into my hands. While the Ottoman Empire was abolishing the Janissary
corps, the Bektashi Order was also in danger of dissolution. For this purpose, the Order's sheikh of Kırsehir,
Hamdullah Celebi, was brought into court and accused of "being non-religious". The book in my hand
was the defense of Celebi... Court proceedings... Celebi, in front of the judges, says: "Who has good
morals has a good religion... Judge the goodness of morality by the goodness of intention..." So it's the
intention that counts. The date is 1832 ... (Kocak, Yunus.2013)
Spinoza wrote and published "Ethica" for the first time in 1677. On the other hand, Kant's Critique of
Practical Reason was published in 1788. Naturally, you can't expect that the argument of a Muslim sheikh
was inspired by two thinkers (One Jew and the other Christian) whose works have just been "recently"
published and have not been translated into Turkish yet at that age. Maybe both Celebi and Spinoza's
"pantheist" beliefs could lead them to make same conclusions at different times in different places.
However, it is probably not a secret that Celebi's most important argument was Haci Bektas-i Veli. But, who
is Haci Bektas' argument? Upon whom is the possibility of "good morality with good intention" based?
According to Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad's hadith, the prophet says:
Another aspect of Islamic morality is also the intention of behaviour. Because the Prophet (PBUH),
by telling that "Deeds are by intentions", has determined that an important principle of Islam. (Bukhari,
Iman, 41)
We are confronted with the issue of intention again. Not in the 17th as Spinoza, in the 18th as Kant, in the
18th as Celebi, but dating back to the 7th century!
The moral is "not that the actions conform to the moral law, but that the actions are done also for moral
law." Then, Kant has been a thousand years behind Eastern philosophy.
However, not a "competitor" ideology nor a claim between religions and thinkers is in question. The answer
to the author's question "Is there a common moral value depending on time and place?" is what matters.
Yes, there is... Independent of time and place; Morality is always and everywhere not only so as to make
the acts good, but also so make them for the good...
CONCLUSION:
Well, but what is the "good"?
After making such an analysis above, if we don't define the "good", all this effort would be in
vain! Good, regardless of time and place, is to be able to give priority to historical and social interests over
personal ones. However, this description does not mean that the individual is sacrificed for the sake of
society.
In our study, we have constantly made reference to the religions. Because it is impossible to discuss
a value such as morality without philosophy of religion. As you can see, there is no harm in reviewing the
religions since they unify the religious and atheists in the same principle ("to be done for the good as
well")! In the Qur'an, it is said in Surah Maida: "... Whoever kills a person is as if he has killed all mankind,"
according to the Bible, God said that to the Children of Israel and the Torah is indicated as the source. Old
Testament! (Old Testament) All religions again...
Also, the good must be considered in this context. "One person" is all humanity ... Thus, the Good is
not for the benefit of each individual but of humanity.
REFERENCES:
Alkan, Turker.. Siyasal Ahlâk ve Siyasal Ahlâksızlık. Bilgi Yayınevi. Ankara:1993
Benjamine,Walter. Çocuklar, Gençlik ve Eğitim Üzerine. Dost Yayınları. Ankara:20013
Bobbio,Norberto. Gramsci ve Sivil Toplum. ( Gramsci and civil socaity) Translated by: Arda İpekKenan Somer. Savaş Yayınları. Ankara:1982
Engels, Freidrich. Anti-Dühring Translated by : Kenan Somer. Sol Yayınları. Ankara:1976
Hamdullah Çelebi’nin Savunması. ( Defance of the Hamdullah Chelebi)- Transkription from the
former alphabet: Yunus Koçak. Serçeşme Yayınları.İstanbul 2013)
Kant, Immanuel. Pratik Aklın Eleştirisi.( KRITIK DER PRAKTISCHEN VERNUNFT) Türkiye
Felsefe Kurumu Çeviri Dizisi 2. 3. Baskı. Translated by: Ioanna Kuçuradi, Ülker Gökberk, Füsun
Akatlı. Ankara. 1999
K.Marx K.- Engels,F. Komünist Manifesto (Communist Manifest). Translated by.: Süleyman
Arslan. Bilim ve Sosyalizm Yayınları. Ankara: 1976
Lenin, V.I. Kültür ve Kültür İhtilali Üzerine (About the culture and Revaluation of culture)
Translated by: Ali Özer. Ser Yayınları. Ankara:1969
Mattei, J.F. Platon. Dost Kitabevi. Ankara:2007
Platon. Diyaloglar (Dialoques) Remzi Kitabevi. Istanbul.2009
Popper, Karl R. Hayat Problem Çözmektir. ( Life is Solving Problem) Translated by: Ali Nalbant.
Yapı Kredi Yayınları. İstanbul:2005
WEB SITES:
http://mutlaktoz.wordpress.com/spinoza-2/ 14.8.2014
Ulus Baker. Kullanışlı Bir Felsefe: Spinozacılık.
http://www.korotonomedya.net/kor/index.php?id=8,79,0,0,1,0 14.8.2014
http://mutlaktoz.wordpress.com/spinoza-2/ 14.8.2014
Ömer YILDIRIM www.felsefe.gen.tr/ahlak.../spinoza_ve_ahlak_felsefesi.. 14.08.2014
Şamil İ.A..http://www.mumsema.com/guzel-ahlak-sifatlari/107620-islamda-ahlak-nedir-ahlak.html