Answer to question (2):
(Four items, the student is to choose only three of them of three marks each 3 × 3 = 9)
A) The critiques of Shaftsbury's moral sense approach:
1- Affection / feeling is varied and relative:
To build morals on feelings and make the moral commitment due to affection
and depending on internal individual source leads to relative individual moral
judgements, because affection is relative and feeling is varied, also the
individual is not the same every time. So it cannot be proper to build a general
moral law that all humans agree on.
2- The separation of moral and religion is wrong:
Religious men criticised Shaftsbury's call for the separation of moral and
religion, and his insistence to exclude the religious reward or punishment as a
moral act. They argued that making people love Heaven and fear Hell has much
moral effect than leaving them for their internal feelings and their own sense of
virtue apart from religion.
3- It is wrong to say that virtues do not require suffering / efforts:
Virtue is essentially a sort of self-denial. This self-denial comes after much
individual suffering to defeat selfishness and try to realise virtue. Only then can
man deserve to be described as a man of morals. But Shaftsbury decided in his
approach that man is good by nature. So, he acts morally spontaneously without
any suffering, then man doesn't do any favour by being a man of moral, while
the real morals are based on free human will that results from suffering.
B) The three powers of the soul in Miskawayh's view:
Miskawayh argued that each power of the three powers of soul has a special virtue
that is compatible with its nature and its function as follows:
- The power of lust: its virtue is chastity and results from generosity.
- The power of Anger: its virtue is courage, and results from patience.
- The Power of speech: its virtue wisdom and it results from knowledge.
C) Concepts of good and evil (Beauty and ugliness) in AL Ghazali's view:
Al Ghazali identifies 'Good' as what man can benefit in the hear after, and 'evil' is
what harms at the end. The act is considered 'good' or 'evil' according to its
benefit or its harm in the hereafter. So, the act that causes harms to its doer in the
hereafter and benefit him in this life isn't considered 'good'. So, AL Ghazali assures
that 'The origin of all evil is involvement in this life and overlooking the hereafter,
while the origin of all good is to act for the hereafter's sake, but without overlooking
For this life in the farm where man cultivates for the hereafter. So, man needs divine
revelation to differentiate between good and evil and also needs reason to guide him
when applying this.
D) Physical evidence is one of the proofs that proponents of freedom provide to
support the position:
It is known that there are some physical movements and acts that man cannot
interfere in or control, such as, the primary instinctive urges:
Hunger, thirst, excretion etc. When man finds himself obliged to follow these
instinctive behaviour involuntarily. That is beside the involuntary reflexive acts,
such as closing eyes in a strong light. Moreover, one feels that there is another set of
acts of the organs and physical movements that he can control. This appears in the
voluntary acts, which are far more than the involuntary acts such as the ability to