Liberal sekulyar progressivlar (gumanistlar, ateistlar, islohotchilar va boshqalar) axloqning vaqt o‘tishi bilan o‘zgarishida hech qanday yomonlik yo‘q deb hisoblaydilar va buni tabiiy, muqarrar jarayon sifatida ko‘radilar, uni hammamiz qabul qilishimiz kerak deb bilishadi. Afsuski, ularning o‘zlari axloqning mohiyati haqida chuqur chalkashlikda.

Liberal secular progressives (including humanists, atheists, reformists, etc.) think there is nothing wrong with morality changing over time and view it as a natural, inevitable process that we should all embrace. Unfortunately for them, they are deeply confused about the very nature of morality.

Bu odamlar, diniy axloq me'yorlari vaqt o'tishi bilan rad etilishiga hech qanday muammo ko'rmaydilar, chunki ular diniy me'yorlarni dastlabki o'rinda axloqiy jihatdan majburiy deb hisoblamaydilar. Ular shunday deydilar: "Avval diniy his-tuyg'ular tufayli, masalan, nikohsiz jinsiy aloqa noto'g'ri deb hisoblangan, ammo zamonlar o'zgardi va biz endi uni unchalik yomon deb bilmaymiz, chunki biz taraqqiy etdik." Bu fikrlashning qanchalik chalkash ekanligini ko'rsatish juda oson. Bu odamlar axloqiy jihatdan majburiy deb biladigan qadriyatni, masalan, irqiy tenglikni ko'rib chiqing. Ulardan so'rang: oq tanlilar ustunligi bir kun kelib axloqiy jihatdan maqbul deb tan olinishiga rozi bo'larmidilar? Axloq shunday o'zgarishi mumkin deb aytish to'g'rimi edi, bir kun kelib oq tanlilar ustunligi hamma intilishi kerak bo'lgan axloqiy me'yor bo'lib qolsa? Nega yo'q? Agar oq tanlilar ustunligida hech qanday yomonlik yo'q-u, biz buni hozircha anglamayotgan bo'lsak-chi, xuddi bir paytlar zinokorlik noto'g'ri deb hisoblangan, kelajak avlodlar esa uning unchalik yomon emasligini "kashf etgani" kabi? Farqi nimada? Nega axloq xuddi shunday tarzda o'zgara olmasligi kerak?

These individuals have no problem with religious morality being discarded over time because they do not view religious norms as morally compelling in the first place. They say things like, “Well, in the past, due to religious sentiment, sex outside of marriage, for example, was considered wrong, but times have changed and we don’t find it so bad anymore because we have progressed.” It is very easy to show how muddled this thinking is. Simply consider a value that these people do find morally compelling, e.g., racial equality. Ask them, would they be OK with white supremacy being considered morally acceptable one day? Would it make sense to say that morality could evolve such that, one day, white supremacy is the ethical norm that all are expected to aspire to? Why not? What if there really isn’t anything wrong with white supremacy but we just don’t realize it yet and only future people will be able to realize it, similar to how at one point, fornication was considered wrong, but future people “discovered” that it’s not so bad? What’s the difference? Why couldn’t morality evolve in that way?

Ахлоқ тасодифан ривожланмайди. У аниқ бир йўналишда ривожланади. Ахлоқимиз хурофотдан холи бўлиб, зарарли нарсаларни аниқлаган сари аниқроқ бўла боради. Ҳақиқатан ҳам ахлоқсиз бўлган ягона иш бошқа инсонга зарар етказишдир, ва бу “Зарар принципи” деб аталади. Ливерал секуляризм таъсирида тарбияланганлар одатда шундай қарашда бўлади: ягона ҳақиқий ахлоқий тамойил Зарар принципидир. Шу мантиққа таяниб, улар (бунга қарши кўплаб далилларга қарамай) фаҳш ишни одамларга аслида зарар етказмайди, демак, уни ахлоқсиз деб ҳисоблаш шарт эмас, деб даъво қилади. Бундан ташқари, улар оқ танлиларнинг устунлиги зарарли эканини аниқладик, демак, у ахлоқсиз деб ҳисобланиши керак, дейди.

Now the response to this might be: “Morality does not evolve haphazardly. It evolves in a specific direction. Our morality becomes increasingly accurate as it sheds superstitions and identifies harms. The only truly immoral act is to harm another person and this is called the ‘Harm Principle.’” Those indoctrinated by liberal secularism tend to have this view: The only true moral principle is the Harm Principle. Using this logic, they claim (despite plenty of countervailing evidence) that we have discovered that fornication doesn’t really harm people, so it should not be considered immoral. Furthermore, we have discovered that white supremacy is harmful, therefore it should be considered immoral.

Lekin bir daqiqaga orqaga qadam tashlaylik. Birinchidan, agar liberal sekulyarlar ta'kidlaganidek, Zararga yo'l qo'ymaslik tamoyili (Harm Principle) barcha axloqning tayanch tosh bo'lsa, ular uning ham rivojlanishi mumkinligini tan olarmidilar? Agar axloq rivojlansa va taraqqiy etsa, bir kun kelib odamlarga zarar yetkazish axloqan joiz ekanini va Zararga yo'l qo'ymaslik tamoyili eskirgan qoldiq ekanini kashf etishimiz mumkinmi? Agar liberal sekulyar progressivlar buning imkonsiz ekanini va Zararga yo'l qo'ymaslik tamoyili doimo normativ jihatdan majburiy bo'lib qolishini da'vo qilsalar, unda ular axloq masalasida haqiqatan progressiv emas. Ular axloqiy mutlaqliklar mavjudligiga ishonadilar. Unda ular dindor musulmonlarni zamon o'tishi bilan o'zgarmaydigan axloqiy mutlaqliklarga ishonganlikda qanday ayblay oladilar?

But let’s step back for a moment. First of all, if the Harm Principle is the keystone of all morality as liberal secularists claim, then would they concede that it could also evolve? If morality evolves and progresses, then could we one day discover that it is morally permissible to harm people and that the Harm Principle is an obsolete relic of the past? If liberal secular progressives maintain that this is not possible and the Harm Principle will always remain normatively compelling, then they are not really progressive when it comes to morality. They believe that there are moral absolutes. So how could they fault devout Muslims for also believing in moral absolutes that are invariant with time?

Hozirgi paytda Zarar printsipiga (Harm Principle) qarshi chiqish oson: zarar aslida nimani anglatishi va uni kim belgilashi haqida savol berish kifoya, shuningdek zararning o‘zi qiymatga yuklangan tushuncha ekanligini, ya’ni u kishining umumiy axloqiy va ontologik qarashlariga bog‘liqligini ko‘rsatish mumkin. Ammo men axloqning evolyutsiyasi masalasiga e’tibor qaratmoqchiman. Zarar printsipiga mutlaq axloqiy qoida sifatida sadoqat bilan amal qiladiganlar o‘zgarib borayotgan axloqiy munosabatlarni zararli yoki zararsiz narsalarni kashf etish jarayoni orqali izohlaydilar. Ammo bu kashf etish jarayoni aslida qanday kechadi?

Now, refuting the Harm Principle is easy enough to do (simply question what truly constitutes harm and who gets to decide that; and additionally, point out that harm itself is a value-laden concept that depends on your broader moral and ontological commitments, etc.). But I want to focus on the idea of evolving morality. Those who are dedicated to the Harm Principle as a moral absolute explain changing moral attitudes through time as a function of discovering what is or is not truly harmful. But what is this discovery process?

Epistemologik nuqtai nazardan, zararni kashf etish yangi sayyoralarni yoki yangi kimyoviy moddalarni kashf etishga o'xshaydimi? Bu empirik jarayonmi? Zararni qayerda ko'rish mumkin? Va eng muhimi, uni ko'rish qobiliyatimiz vaqt o'tishi bilan qanday rivojlanadi? Koinotdagi sayyoralarni kashf etish teleskoplar texnologiyasi takomillashgani sari qanchalik osonlashganini tushunamiz. Bs holda vaqt o'tishi bilan yangi zararlarni kashf etishimizga nima imkon beradi?

Epistemologically speaking, is discovering harms akin to discovering new planets or new chemicals? Is it an empirical thing? Where can you see harm? And, more importantly, how does our ability to see it progress as a function of time? We can understand how discovering planets in the universe has become easier with improved telescope technology. But what is allowing us to discover new harms over time?

Açıq ravshan bo'lishicha, liberal dunyoqarashli dunyoviy progressiv odam bu savolga aqlga muvofiq va tortishuvga yetarli javob topa olmaydi, shuning uchun u quyidagi iborani ishlatishga majbur bo'ladi: "Zararlar doim ma'lum bo'lgan, ammo kuchli, yovuz va xudbin odamlar ularni bartaraf etish uchun axloqiy his-tuyg'ularning o'zgarishiga to'sqinlik qilgan." Bu haqda bir necha eslatma. Birinchidan, qaysi zararlar doim ma'lum bo'lganligining dalili qayerda? Jahon tarixini ko'zdan kechirsak, bugungi kun me'yorlari bo'yicha jiddiy "zararli" hisoblangan ko'p narsalar tarixda hech qachon eshitilmagan edi. Gomofobiya bunga bir misol. Transfobiya yana bir misol. Madaniy o'zlashtirish yana bir misol. Mikroagressiya yana bir misol. Olmoshlarni ishlatish orqali zulm qilish yana bir misol. Darhaqiqat, eng yaqin universitetning Gender tadqiqotlari bo'limidagi liberal san'at darsiga kiring, va zulm, huquqsizlik, jinsiy kamsitish va boshqalar sifatida o'rgatiladigan deyarli hamma narsa tarixda hech qachon eshitilmagan edi. Bu "yomonliklar"ning asosida yotgan tushunchalar bir yoki ikki avlod oldin gina o'ylab topilgan. Shunday ekan, bugungi liberal dunyoviy progressivlar tomonidan tan olingan jiddiy "zararlarning" ko'pi tarixda ma'lum bo'lgan, degan qarash qanchalik ishonarli?

Clearly, the liberal secular progressive is not going to have a non-ridiculous, non-grasping-at-straws answer to this, so he will resort to this line: “Harms were always known but powerful, evil, self-serving people prevented moral sentiments from changing in order to address those harms.” A couple of notes on this. First, where is the proof that certain harms were always known? If we survey world history, much of what is considered seriously “harmful” by present standards was unheard of historically. Homophobia is one example. Transphobia is another. Cultural appropriation is another. Microagression is another. Oppression through pronoun usage is another. In fact, just attend a liberal arts class, preferably in the Gender Studies department at your nearest university, and virtually everything that is taught as oppression, disenfranchisement, sexism, etc., was historically unheard of. The very concepts upon which these “wrongs” are based were not coined prior to one or two generations ago. So how plausible is this view that many of the serious “harms” recognized by liberal secular progressives today were known historically?

Ikkinchidan, bu javob yana bir bor "axloqiy taraqqiyot" g'oyasini zaiflashtiradi. Agar Zarar prinsipi o'zgarmas mutlaq bo'lsa, zarar nimada ekani ham o'zgarmas mutlaq bo'lsa va odamlarning zarar nimada ekani haqidagi bilimi ham o'zgarmas mutlaq bo'lsa, unda biz ko'p eshitadigan o'sha axloqiy taraqqiyot aslida qayerda? Bizning suhbatdoshimiz taraqqiyot yomon odamlar yengilganda va haqiqiy adolat g'alaba qozonganda yuz beradi, deb javob berishi mumkin. Lekin axloqiy taraqqiyotning bunday tushunchasi juda kuchsiz. Buni hamma tan oladi! Yaxshilik bilan yomonlik o'rtasidagi kurash abadiy davom etadi, ba'zan yaxshilar g'alaba qozonadi, ba'zan mag'lub bo'ladi. Hatto liberal bo'lmagan, dunyoviy bo'lmagan diniy e'tiqod egalari ham shunday deb o'ylaydi! Bu liberal dunyoviylar tez-tez murojaat qiladigan, insoniyat tarixi davomida uzluksiz axloqiy taraqqiyot haqidagi tushuncha emas.

Secondly, again this response undermines the whole idea of moral progress. If the Harm Principle is an un-evolving absolute and what is or is not harmful is an un-evolving absolute and people’s knowledge of what is or is not harmful is an un-evolving absolute, then where exactly is all the moral progress we keep hearing so much about? Our interlocutor could say that the progress happens when the bad guys get beat and true justice triumphs. But that is a very weak idea of moral progress. Everyone believes in this kind of moral progress! The fight between good and evil is perpetual and sometimes, the good guys win. Other times they lose. Even non-liberal, non-secular theists believe this! This is hardly the notion of continuous moral progress over the course of human history that liberal secularists like to appeal to.

Oxir-oqibatda, axloqiy taraqqiyot degan bu g'oya batafsil tanqid qilinganda, eng oddiy tekshiruvga ham bardosh bermaydi. Bu tushuncha jiddiy epistemologik muammolarga ega, ayniqsa bunga qisman Zarar tamoyilining o'zidagi tushunchaviy kamchiliklar sabab bo'ladi. Liberal dunyoviy progressivlar axloqiy taraqqiyotga murojaat qilganda, vahiy davridan to hozirgacha Islom axloqiy tamoyillarining umumiy va o'zgarmas qo'llanilishini saqlaydigan musulmonlar unga qarshi chiqishlari kerak. Musulmonlar bu muammolarni ko'rsatishlari va mafkuraviy raqiblaridan o'z fikrlaridagi katta bo'shliqlarni bartaraf etishni talab qilishlari lozim.

Ultimately, when this idea of moral progress is critically examined, it does not withstand the most minimal amount of scrutiny. The notion suffers from serious epistemological problems and this is partly due to the conceptual deficiencies within the Harm Principle itself. When liberal secular progressives invoke moral progress, Muslims who maintain the universal, unchanging applicability of Islamic moral principles from the time of revelation to present, should push back. Muslims should point out these problems and demand that their ideological opponents address the gaping holes in their thought.