Sunday, April 13, 2003
Jazz, I read your comments, I can tell that you are in the right track! I’m sure it has been my bad choice of words or unclear sentences that caused some confusion, one of them was the word “equal”, that as I felt made you angry with me more than confused , and I apologize for that.
It can be interesting for you to know that Iman and I had a similar discussion on morality a while ago. I will come back to this, but first I want to talk about how we usually use the word “morality”. The meaning that we understand from words are mostly determined form their time or place of use .I think when people from different cultures or from different religious perspectives use this term, they are talking about the correctness or wrongness of a special thing. This is the common use of this term as far as I understand. When me and Iman were discussing about a certain issue, Iman asked me how I defined morality, and I said instead of morality I prefer to use “correctness” of an act, since morality needs a code, so my main point is that : if we are not discussing based on an agreed moral code , we should know whenever we use the word “moral”, it means a correct or advisable way of acting. So when I saw that you are considering the morality in its specific sense, I said that this is not what I mean by it ( by saying that I used it in a subjective way) and the focus is something else. As you see I have used logical reasons to say that homosexuality is not correct, especially in the last part of my essay. So here being immoral is equal to being “wrong”. This is the common use of the word. Let me give you an example: In Islam eating pig’s meat and shaving your beard with a blade is forbidden, and so considered immoral acts, now if somebody has accepted Islam as his moral code , he will consider doing them immoral. Now someone may argue that as far as science and experience tells us, there’s nothing wrong in doing them today . But they are still considered immoral in Muslin world, this is a case that correctness of an act can be different from its morality; muslin clergies have never abolished these laws, and one of their reasons is that there may always be some ulterior reason that we don’t know of.
I 'll try to explain another side of this later.
(posted by Farid)
Posted:Sunday, April 13, 2003 |
Comments: Post a Comment