Londoniyyah - Part 13 - Individualism | Mohammed Hijab (2022-01-08) ​

0:00:15 ready for takeoff
0:00:22 assalamu alaikum
0:00:24 welcome to our new session on
0:00:26 individualism a very important topic
0:00:28 which um in fact is part of the public
0:00:31 discourse now we're talking about
0:00:32 individualism versus collectivism these
0:00:34 are very important words we need to know
0:00:36 what they are we need to know the
0:00:38 ideology that in underpins these words
0:00:40 so we're going to start with inshallah
0:00:42 the poem as we do uh as a
0:00:44 tradition here and then we're going to
0:00:46 inshaallah uh explain it
0:01:09 so individualism
0:01:11 is an ideology which
0:01:12 if you look at some of the definitions
0:01:14 prioritizes the individual in analysis
0:01:18 now what kind of analysis are we talking
0:01:19 about political analysis social analysis
0:01:21 economic analysis
0:01:23 or all of the above
0:01:25 and really depending on what type of
0:01:27 individual we're talking about we're
0:01:29 talking about all of the above we're
0:01:30 talking about all these different types
0:01:32 of
0:01:32 uh individualism now what is the
0:01:35 individual prioritized
0:01:38 against if you like what would you say
0:01:41 if we're going to say we're going to
0:01:42 prioritize the individual
0:01:44 what we're going to prioritize the
0:01:45 individual in comparison with what do
0:01:47 you think
0:01:49 against the collective so what kind of
0:01:50 collectives are we talking about
0:01:52 society maybe yeah i mean
0:01:56 tribe yeah yeah it's collective
0:01:59 where else
0:02:01 family
0:02:02 demographic yeah family even family
0:02:04 correct because family is is a unit of
0:02:06 some sorts yeah what else
0:02:08 the government that's a very important
0:02:09 one yeah in fact probably is the most
0:02:12 important one because in fact
0:02:15 you know
0:02:16 a lot of the time when you hear
0:02:17 individualists speak you'll see them
0:02:21 speaking about the horrors of
0:02:23 collectivism and they'll mention things
0:02:24 like totalitarianism
0:02:26 totalitarianism
0:02:28 or fascist totalitarianism things like
0:02:30 the nazi nazi germany stuff like that
0:02:33 is in many ways the opposite of
0:02:35 individualism at least you think it is
0:02:36 because
0:02:37 uh it's you know you have a dictator
0:02:39 which puts or an authoritarian leader of
0:02:42 some sort which puts
0:02:43 or prioritizes
0:02:45 as the nation as a whole above and
0:02:48 beyond
0:02:49 the individual
0:02:50 so a lot of the time when you hear
0:02:52 individualistic rhetoric you'll you'll
0:02:54 see kind of warnings about
0:02:57 collectivism with special reference to
0:02:59 you know totalitarianism
0:03:02 or communism because communism was a
0:03:04 very strong collectivist ideology
0:03:07 you know socialism which is once again a
0:03:08 very strong collectivist ideology
0:03:11 and we will be covering those ideologies
0:03:13 uh
0:03:14 you know in the in future sessions
0:03:18 democracy not as much because democracy
0:03:20 once again is it's the individual act
0:03:23 but that we will talk about i think you
0:03:26 are if we talk about represent
0:03:27 representative democracy because
0:03:29 democracy is divided into two you have
0:03:31 direct democracy and representative
0:03:33 democracy yeah
0:03:35 direct democracy back in the day you
0:03:37 know in athens and stuff like that they
0:03:39 used to vote straight away for things
0:03:41 which is the equivalent maybe or
0:03:43 something similar to at least what we
0:03:45 refer to in our times as a referendum
0:03:47 but
0:03:48 uh representative democracy is when you
0:03:50 elect some kind of a representative
0:03:53 we've already spoken about what happens
0:03:54 when
0:03:55 on social contractarianism
0:03:58 what happens when people
0:04:00 elect a leader and the leader has uh
0:04:03 you know has uh sovereignty
0:04:06 or sovereignty you know like for example
0:04:07 in this country
0:04:09 parliament is sovereign that is
0:04:11 that is the key that
0:04:13 that is the key
0:04:14 um part of the constitution we have a
0:04:16 constitutional country it's not codified
0:04:18 in uk it's not codified constitution
0:04:20 meaning it's not reign in one place
0:04:22 but it's an uncodified constitution yeah
0:04:25 which is made up of different things
0:04:26 like statute law and common law
0:04:28 and so on
0:04:30 so
0:04:30 parliament is sovereign means parliament
0:04:33 is the main body
0:04:34 which everything goes back to
0:04:37 where in order to receive
0:04:39 kind of justification legal
0:04:41 justification
0:04:43 now
0:04:45 individualism
0:04:47 although quite close to egoism should
0:04:48 not be confused with it we talked about
0:04:50 egoism last time and who remembers how
0:04:52 to define
0:04:54 ethical egoism
0:04:58 self-interest
0:05:00 okay so self-interest but what kind of
0:05:02 self-interest what's the difference
0:05:04 between psychological egoism and ethical
0:05:06 egos remember
0:05:17 great great so psychological egoism is
0:05:20 that we
0:05:21 are self-interest it's the proposition
0:05:23 that we are self-interested
0:05:25 okay that even the most
0:05:26 seemingly altruistic
0:05:28 things that we do
0:05:30 like you know a mother trying to save
0:05:32 her child at the end of it goes back to
0:05:34 an interest of hers
0:05:36 you know jumping on a grenade or
0:05:37 something you know
0:05:39 it goes back to an interest of us
0:05:40 that's a proposition of what is the case
0:05:43 but what ought to be the case
0:05:46 is
0:05:47 now ethical egoism because we said well
0:05:48 as the moment we start talking about
0:05:50 prescriptions
0:05:52 is
0:05:53 oh sorry um should should an
0:05:55 autumn
0:05:56 or you say
0:05:57 do or don't even and this one is a
0:05:59 little bit more sensitive because
0:06:02 you could have
0:06:03 you could have prudential motivation or
0:06:05 you could have
0:06:07 we talked about hypothetical imperatives
0:06:08 and categorical imperatives
0:06:11 so if i say go and clean the room and it
0:06:13 will go and cut you go and go exercise
0:06:16 and you'll be fit
0:06:17 that's not really a moral thing to say
0:06:20 so with with imperatives it ca there's a
0:06:22 possibility it can be ethical or not
0:06:24 depending on what kind of imperatives
0:06:25 are being performed
0:06:27 but definitely if it's about good or bad
0:06:29 do or don't
0:06:31 um usually we're talking about ethics
0:06:33 now yeah
0:06:35 and so
0:06:36 individualism should not be confused
0:06:39 with
0:06:40 egoism although there's a very close
0:06:42 proximity between the two things both of
0:06:44 them
0:06:45 i mean let me ask you what what is
0:06:46 similar between the two uh things what
0:06:48 is similar between ethical egoism
0:06:51 which says that you should do whatever
0:06:54 you want to do
0:06:56 and individualism which prioritizes
0:06:59 individuals in society
0:07:02 focus here
0:07:04 but what's the difference i mean the
0:07:05 difference yes
0:07:07 that's a similarity isn't it
0:07:09 yeah what's the difference
0:07:12 it's it's very close right is it that
0:07:14 it's not talking about like your
0:07:17 your desires
0:07:18 um and like your needs rather it's
0:07:21 talking about like i don't know uh like
0:07:23 things that you might value
0:07:26 and want instead
0:07:29 what do you mean
0:07:30 so
0:07:31 i feel like on egoism i don't know um
0:07:34 that you might want like you might um
0:07:36 have like a need to i don't know if you
0:07:37 feel
0:07:38 your i don't know hunger or pleasures
0:07:40 right um but it sounds like
0:07:42 individualism is maybe like looking at a
0:07:45 higher level
0:07:46 of like what your interests are so
0:07:48 things that you value my egoism can also
0:07:49 be that right yeah
0:07:51 it's individual
0:07:52 individualism in relation to everyone
0:07:54 else
0:07:55 and egoism is just
0:07:57 about yourself and you don't consider
0:07:59 how it affects other people
0:08:02 you could look consequentialism can you
0:08:04 can have egoistic consequentialism and
0:08:06 you can have individualistic
0:08:07 consequentialism it can fit in almost
0:08:09 anywhere
0:08:11 and you you can have individualistic
0:08:13 egoism
0:08:16 a lot of these things that we're going
0:08:17 over like in in the sessions don't think
0:08:19 that they're always mutually exclusive
0:08:21 you can put them together like
0:08:23 individualism and egoism can co-exist
0:08:26 but they're not expressions of exactly
0:08:27 the same thing like when we talk about
0:08:29 individualism depending on what type of
0:08:31 individualism we're talking about
0:08:33 we're just making claims about what
0:08:35 rights and responsibilities individuals
0:08:38 should have respective to other
0:08:41 collective
0:08:42 entities
0:08:44 that's what we're talking about we're
0:08:45 not really making a claim about what the
0:08:47 individual should do or shouldn't do
0:08:49 this is a very fine line distinction
0:08:50 between egoism and individualism
0:08:53 yeah so what's the criticism
0:08:55 psychological
0:08:56 oh psychological egoism has nothing to
0:08:58 do with with ethics right it's a
0:09:00 psychological study okay but when you
0:09:02 just mention individualism
0:09:05 that you you kind of i don't know it
0:09:07 sounded like you were saying that it's
0:09:08 separate from morality
0:09:10 no no no it's not it's not because what
0:09:12 we're saying is that it's morally good
0:09:14 to prefer
0:09:15 the rights and responsibilities of
0:09:17 individuals over and above that of
0:09:19 states or
0:09:20 collectives of any kind
0:09:22 that's that is the individualistic
0:09:23 notion
0:09:25 now
0:09:26 if you take individualism
0:09:28 if you take the notion of preferring
0:09:31 the individual set of
0:09:33 uh
0:09:34 rights and responsibilities
0:09:36 well let's say rights in particular
0:09:37 right over and above state rights for
0:09:39 instance yeah
0:09:41 then what what do you think we will
0:09:43 reach
0:09:44 on the spectrum
0:09:46 of political models because
0:09:47 individualism now we've moved away from
0:09:49 kind of ethical systems
0:09:51 to political philosophies now and also
0:09:54 to uh this is a political philosophy an
0:09:56 ideology a political philosophy it's not
0:09:58 just an ethical system
0:10:01 so
0:10:02 on the political landscape where do you
0:10:04 think
0:10:05 if if the more individualistic you are
0:10:07 the more
0:10:10 no this is
0:10:12 now
0:10:14 yeah go so libertarian what's even more
0:10:16 severe than libertarianism
0:10:20 yeah anarchism right so at the extreme
0:10:22 end of this side is anarchism
0:10:25 because what is anarchism
0:10:28 yeah there is no government there is no
0:10:30 government
0:10:32 because
0:10:33 uh libertarianism is that the government
0:10:35 has minimal intervention
0:10:37 like what robert nozick would argue for
0:10:39 but we still have a government we still
0:10:41 have a state
0:10:43 whereas anarchism you don't even have a
0:10:44 government or a state
0:10:47 you know you've now you've eliminated
0:10:49 the government i say because you you
0:10:50 preferred the individualistic
0:10:53 um
0:10:55 kind of
0:10:56 set of rights
0:10:57 over and above
0:10:59 the state's rights
0:11:01 right so a true like the most cons for
0:11:03 me anyway at least the most consistent
0:11:04 type of individualist is an anarchist i
0:11:07 think that's probably where the
0:11:08 strongest argument is is
0:11:10 because
0:11:12 if we're saying the individual rights
0:11:14 and if we're especially if we're using
0:11:15 universal quantifiers to make our claim
0:11:17 right that it's
0:11:20 in all cases the individual should be
0:11:22 preferred over the state or the
0:11:24 government or whatever it is or any
0:11:25 collective if if we use this kind of
0:11:27 this language this generalized language
0:11:30 then
0:11:31 fitting exceptions in the case of
0:11:32 libertarianism which they do for
0:11:34 exceptions for police and for like basic
0:11:36 apparatus
0:11:37 or even more strongly so for liberalism
0:11:40 with social contract theory
0:11:43 would seem to be a
0:11:45 stress on this theory or at least in
0:11:47 contradiction with it i mean we talked
0:11:49 about social contract theory right
0:11:51 imagine
0:11:52 if we remember some of the quotes that
0:11:54 were like said by immanuel kant and john
0:11:56 rules and john locke and these
0:11:59 if you remember like how much pressure
0:12:01 how much emphasis they put on the
0:12:02 sovereign
0:12:03 how much ev how much emphasis they put
0:12:05 on the sovereign like you know you must
0:12:06 obey the sovereign we said in this
0:12:08 country the parliament parliament is
0:12:09 sovereign so so there's still that
0:12:11 notion there right the social contract
0:12:12 is there
0:12:13 linked to the representative democracy
0:12:17 if you if you if an individualist who
0:12:19 really prefers the rights of individual
0:12:21 rights or
0:12:23 visualize
0:12:24 red kind of works of immanuel kant
0:12:29 what do you think they will say
0:12:32 on these things like
0:12:36 they'll at least find they're very
0:12:37 uncomfortable at least right
0:12:40 because it goes against the spirit of
0:12:42 individualism
0:12:43 so the more and more
0:12:45 you move away from
0:12:49 liberal notions and into libertarian
0:12:51 notions and from libertarian notions and
0:12:53 anarchical notions
0:12:55 then the more individualistic you become
0:12:59 okay now
0:13:00 what do you i'm going to present to you
0:13:02 what arguments
0:13:03 they make and there's many people who
0:13:06 have spoken spoken of individualism
0:13:10 uh we've just spoken speaking before the
0:13:12 session about uh what referred to as
0:13:14 methodological uh individualism now
0:13:16 methodological individualism is not a
0:13:19 moral claim
0:13:21 just like egoism starts with a
0:13:22 psychological claim
0:13:24 individualism can also start with
0:13:27 a claim which is non-ethical
0:13:29 in this case it's referred to as
0:13:30 methodological individualism
0:13:32 and methodological individualism
0:13:35 it simply
0:13:36 talks about what the individual should
0:13:38 do
0:13:39 uh sorry what the what the individual
0:13:41 does that individuals
0:13:43 or that societies are
0:13:46 run by individuals not by groups so it's
0:13:48 talking about something that is rather
0:13:49 than something that ought to be
0:13:51 so we have uh ludwig
0:13:54 von mises
0:13:57 who
0:13:58 famous for his works on praxology you
0:14:00 know
0:14:01 um austrian uh philosopher
0:14:04 who
0:14:04 stated
0:14:06 uh who made the case
0:14:08 and he started by speaking about
0:14:09 mythological individualism talking about
0:14:11 that that is the state of affairs like
0:14:14 we've got individuals in society that is
0:14:15 and then he started making claims now
0:14:17 now so he's moved away from
0:14:19 methodological individualism
0:14:20 to ethical individualism and in such uh
0:14:26 polemic if you like
0:14:27 he gave some reasons why he thinks
0:14:31 that individualism
0:14:33 or that collectivism okay of any sort is
0:14:36 wrong
0:14:37 and he gave two main reasons number one
0:14:40 he said that if you want to base
0:14:42 collectivist ideology on anything let's
0:14:44 say if it's nation religion
0:14:47 tribe we mentioned all the things that
0:14:48 we mentioned in the beginning of the
0:14:49 session
0:14:50 that to choose which one you're going to
0:14:52 pick over another
0:14:53 is going to be an arbitrary thing
0:14:56 it would require arbitrariness
0:14:58 there's no um
0:15:00 set standard
0:15:02 or
0:15:03 for choosing one over the other
0:15:06 there's no set standard for it
0:15:08 and obviously a second thing which links
0:15:10 to this is the argument that we all hear
0:15:12 which is about the horrors of collective
0:15:14 ideology
0:15:16 and uh you know if you have collective
0:15:18 psychology you can sometimes slip into
0:15:20 totalitarianism authoritarianism these
0:15:22 are the kinds of arguments we find
0:15:24 now with the person next to you
0:15:28 okay i'll give you about five minutes to
0:15:29 speak about this
0:15:31 we want to discuss
0:15:35 what you think a counter argument from a
0:15:37 collectivist will be
0:15:38 okay so this these are the kind of main
0:15:40 arguments let's say of individualism
0:15:42 against collectivism that this is
0:15:44 arbitrary they would say you know this
0:15:46 is arbitrary how how and why would you
0:15:48 um
0:15:50 establish a collective on
0:15:52 x um identity marker rather than
0:15:56 zed identity marker why determine that
0:16:00 and number two this can lead to kind of
0:16:02 destruction and you know totalitarianism
0:16:04 and
0:16:05 you know authoritarianism and so on if
0:16:08 you are now collectivist
0:16:10 of some sorts how would you respond to
0:16:12 these two points i'll give you five
0:16:14 minutes and then we'll come back
0:16:22 yeah so what would you have to say
0:16:24 okay
0:16:25 what's your name again
0:16:31 um so yeah the um you mentioned that
0:16:34 mrs had two claims one was that it's
0:16:36 arbitrary to establish
0:16:37 a collection uh on you know ex-identity
0:16:40 mark and the second was
0:16:41 the uh
0:16:43 horrors of collectivism uh you know at
0:16:45 least skeletonism and so on so um the
0:16:48 first argument that we would present is
0:16:50 that
0:16:52 it's not arbitrary to establish a
0:16:53 collection on identity marker if a group
0:16:55 of individuals they
0:16:57 come together
0:16:59 on a shared
0:17:01 interest
0:17:02 so a group of individuals they have you
0:17:04 know they would each decide that this is
0:17:07 their most preferred interest is the
0:17:08 highest value interest and they would
0:17:10 come together on that market and work
0:17:11 together to achieve that
0:17:14 i think that's a that's a very
0:17:16 reasonable argument um i think certainly
0:17:18 that's uh
0:17:20 something you could say but then they
0:17:22 would argue they would argue that
0:17:24 the moment now becomes a collective
0:17:26 there will be disparities in how that
0:17:28 collective is defined which not all
0:17:30 individuals would agree with
0:17:32 so for example let's take a nation how
0:17:34 do we define british values for example
0:17:37 here
0:17:38 so not everyone in britain really agrees
0:17:39 that these are the most important values
0:17:41 in britain
0:17:42 but you know so a lot of people will
0:17:44 agree with that so then you're gonna
0:17:45 have to kind of smuggle in a demographic
0:17:47 uh democratic
0:17:49 reasoning which now we're going into
0:17:50 another ideology altogether
0:17:52 because it will be the majority the will
0:17:54 of the majority
0:17:55 but individualists are more explicit
0:17:58 about the will of the individual
0:18:01 but it is definitely something you could
0:18:03 say uh it's
0:18:05 what else what else could you say in
0:18:07 response
0:18:13 we have to have this head because even
0:18:15 if you if you become collective
0:18:18 sorry if you become individual can lead
0:18:20 to anarchy if you become a collective it
0:18:22 can lead to
0:18:26 dictatorship
0:18:28 yeah but for them even if it does lead
0:18:30 to anarchy what's the problem this is
0:18:32 what we want
0:18:33 so
0:18:34 in certain situations you have to choose
0:18:35 one so imagine like
0:18:38 in a referendum
0:18:40 to decide if the country needs to be
0:18:42 separate or not
0:18:43 you can even though um
0:18:45 so you have 51 percent of 5 percent of
0:18:48 uh
0:18:49 votes
0:18:50 i understand you cannot ignore the 45
0:18:52 percent but you can't ignore the 55 you
0:18:54 have to choose one so in that case in
0:18:56 that case uh individualism wouldn't work
0:19:00 it doesn't make sense
0:19:02 well if we went into the anarch so some
0:19:04 situations require you to
0:19:07 to
0:19:08 choose one you can't like what give me
0:19:10 an example like the one i mentioned you
0:19:11 say again so uh
0:19:13 situations like
0:19:15 a nation needs to uh decide if like
0:19:17 wilson um
0:19:20 sorry the separation yeah so if you
0:19:22 wanna if we wanna separate from this
0:19:24 country we don't we don't wanna be
0:19:25 powerful but nation states in and of
0:19:27 itself are a questionable thing
0:19:30 on anarchical notions
0:19:35 nation states itself the whole question
0:19:36 of a country like you know
0:19:39 with borders and patrol and military and
0:19:41 stuff
0:19:42 that itself is we're not we're not we're
0:19:44 not we're not
0:19:46 we're not taking for granted that an
0:19:48 anarchist would say that that's possible
0:19:50 even
0:19:53 do you see yeah
0:19:55 so the stronger argument will be let's
0:19:57 start with this question yeah you're
0:19:58 definitely look this is good you're
0:20:00 grappling with it yeah it's fine it's
0:20:01 good you you're coming you're saying
0:20:03 good stuff it's not it's anything bad
0:20:05 but what i want to say is
0:20:08 let's start with a very very basic
0:20:09 notion let's take a step what are the
0:20:11 assumptions of individualism
0:20:14 assuming that the individual right is
0:20:16 superior to the collective collective
0:20:18 right isn't that there are some things
0:20:19 which are more foundational than that
0:20:24 that the individual has the right it has
0:20:25 rights
0:20:26 yes but there's some things which are
0:20:27 even more foundational than that
0:20:29 are you an individual
0:20:32 to pursue these rights
0:20:34 do you also pursue these interests and
0:20:35 values
0:20:37 uh
0:20:38 well now we've smuggled in uh
0:20:40 egoism in a sense whether he wants to or
0:20:42 not is not the question here refusing to
0:20:44 follow the crowd thinking for yourself
0:20:48 yeah thinking for yourself
0:20:50 let's let's explore that for a second
0:20:53 uh thinking for yourself
0:20:55 should you think for yourself
0:20:57 do you think for ourselves all the time
0:20:59 can you shoot yourself as always
0:21:02 should we think for ourselves
0:21:04 in every circle in every circumstance
0:21:07 do we think for ourselves never a
0:21:08 circumstance
0:21:09 no give me an example of when you don't
0:21:11 think for yourself don't think of myself
0:21:13 don't think for yourself
0:21:16 great why not um
0:21:18 because you know you would want to
0:21:20 continue driving even if it was a clear
0:21:21 road but you're bound by that uh well
0:21:24 there's something more foundational than
0:21:25 that right
0:21:27 who who put the red light in place not
0:21:29 you yeah some someone else someone who's
0:21:31 more about
0:21:33 red lights and yeah injunctions than you
0:21:36 right yeah okay
0:21:38 so the assumption that you know what's
0:21:40 best for yourself
0:21:41 yeah that's an assumption
0:21:44 yeah you know what is best for yourself
0:21:46 the good life conceptions of the you
0:21:48 know what's it so you could say one of
0:21:50 the individualistic assumptions is you
0:21:51 know what's best for yourself
0:21:53 now
0:21:55 can that be challenged
0:21:57 that assumption that we know what's best
0:21:58 for ourselves
0:22:02 don't always know what this for us give
0:22:04 me an example
0:22:08 so seed builds
0:22:11 well i i know that's good for me i'll
0:22:12 put it on myself no problem yeah but
0:22:14 some people will agree that it's not
0:22:16 they would just say no
0:22:18 now but now you're going into imposition
0:22:20 now you're going into now the
0:22:22 government's forcing you to do it i'm
0:22:23 asking you at what stage do you not know
0:22:25 what's good for yourself give me
0:22:26 examples when there are things about
0:22:28 your life that you don't know that
0:22:30 whether it's good for me or not you need
0:22:31 to outsource it to somebody else's smoke
0:22:34 medicine's a great example right so if
0:22:36 you if you have a problem
0:22:38 surgery you're not going to get there
0:22:40 and do on yourself unless you're a
0:22:41 surgeon i mean some surgeons have done
0:22:43 this i've seen some videos of that
0:22:45 but unless you are a surgeon you are not
0:22:47 going to
0:22:49 do that yourself
0:22:50 because you don't know what's best for
0:22:52 yourself in this context of medicine
0:22:54 you actually don't even know what to do
0:22:55 all you know is you want to get rid of
0:22:57 this
0:22:58 problem
0:22:59 but you have to outsource that to
0:23:00 somebody else so there are examples of
0:23:02 situations
0:23:04 where clearly you don't know what's best
0:23:06 for yourself so you have to outsource
0:23:07 that
0:23:09 so the question the assumption
0:23:11 of i know what's best for myself
0:23:12 therefore i should make my own decisions
0:23:15 that assumption can can be can be put
0:23:17 into question but there's something even
0:23:18 deeper than this
0:23:21 what you said wasn't worth like you know
0:23:23 are we individuals that's probably one
0:23:25 of the most deep things you can ask
0:23:28 and certainly
0:23:29 some greater men
0:23:31 i shouldn't even say this really but you
0:23:33 know from the perspective of
0:23:34 philosophical insight have said that
0:23:36 like nietzsche
0:23:38 even though we don't you know
0:23:40 from the islamic perspective you know
0:23:42 agree with him but from the perspective
0:23:43 of
0:23:45 uh
0:23:46 you know sharpness
0:23:48 you know and he was we talked about this
0:23:50 in fact
0:23:51 i think therefore i am so you're
0:23:52 presupposing i you you're presupposing
0:23:54 individual
0:23:56 you could say that but there's something
0:23:58 more
0:23:59 do we have free will
0:24:02 okay this is a question of contention
0:24:06 like okay obviously um
0:24:08 from our perspective we do as muslims we
0:24:10 the whole religion is based on the fact
0:24:12 that we are making our decision right
0:24:13 now
0:24:14 but i'm saying as a matter of
0:24:15 philosophical inquiry there are three
0:24:18 schools of thought major major schools
0:24:19 of thought right one of them is the
0:24:21 determinist school of law
0:24:23 and what is the determinist school of
0:24:25 four posit
0:24:28 that we don't have free will that we are
0:24:30 puppets where this is a cosmic
0:24:32 ventriloquism
0:24:33 you know
0:24:34 me moving right now
0:24:36 doing this even all my thoughts they are
0:24:38 being guided
0:24:40 by an antecedent causal chain of
0:24:43 uninterrupted events
0:24:45 i have no free will according to this
0:24:46 view and this is what you could even say
0:24:48 the dominant view or a dominant view in
0:24:50 philosophy
0:24:52 now if you don't have free will
0:24:53 individualism is meaningless
0:24:55 because you you can't know what's best
0:24:56 for yourself because you're not doing
0:24:58 anything for yourself and in fact
0:25:00 you're being forced to do everything
0:25:03 so the assumption is volition free will
0:25:06 what you really can't have and which
0:25:08 will be a contradiction
0:25:10 is a deterministic individualist
0:25:13 because one notion
0:25:14 foregoes then the opposite notion
0:25:17 if you are if someone declares you that
0:25:19 they are
0:25:21 a determinist
0:25:23 a metaphysical determinist they can't go
0:25:25 ahead and say well now we should be
0:25:27 individualists or that we are even
0:25:29 methodologically individualistic
0:25:32 because now you've defied the fact that
0:25:33 human beings
0:25:35 are doing anything for themselves let
0:25:36 alone know how to do things in their
0:25:38 best interests you can't do something in
0:25:40 your best interest if you're not doing
0:25:41 things
0:25:42 you see
0:25:44 so these are there are some assumptions
0:25:46 here and you've got to be careful of who
0:25:47 you're speaking to when you're
0:25:49 you know making the point
0:25:51 but the let's think about this again as
0:25:53 a group we'll do one more uh based on
0:25:56 some of the stuff we've just said now
0:25:59 one more kind of group work stuff
0:26:01 where we we're thinking about based on
0:26:03 some of the assumptions that we talked
0:26:04 about
0:26:05 what can be said against individualism
0:26:08 what can be based on some of the
0:26:10 assumptions that we've said now and i
0:26:11 want you to focus on two things
0:26:14 i want you to focus on the assumption
0:26:16 that
0:26:17 we know what's best for ourselves
0:26:20 okay that's number two i want you to
0:26:22 focus on the assumption of freedom
0:26:25 that we have freedom
0:26:27 and this is almost taken for granted
0:26:29 that we have freedom
0:26:31 we have freedom and we should have
0:26:33 freedom
0:26:34 these are two things
0:26:36 rousseau said man is born free but is
0:26:37 everywhere in chains
0:26:40 but are we even born free maybe we were
0:26:42 born with chains
0:26:43 a determinist would certainly conclude
0:26:45 that that is the case right
0:26:46 so five minutes and then we'll come back
0:26:48 and have a discussion
0:26:53 all right so let's see anyone want to
0:26:55 start us off
0:27:00 okay so
0:27:02 um yeah so we basically talked about
0:27:04 both assumptions and uh the first
0:27:06 assumption that we talked about was this
0:27:07 individual knowing what's best for
0:27:08 himself um
0:27:10 i actually sorry the first assumption
0:27:12 talked about was this idea of freedom
0:27:15 and you know if a person is obviously a
0:27:17 deterministic person then obviously
0:27:19 can't do it once anyway and therefore um
0:27:22 yeah this is contradictory with
0:27:24 individualism where a person chooses to
0:27:26 do what they want
0:27:28 um and then
0:27:29 on the first assumption we talked about
0:27:31 a person who expressed themselves we
0:27:32 would say that
0:27:36 we would actually in you know in general
0:27:38 need to limit some individuals because
0:27:41 they don't know what's best for
0:27:42 themselves for example um you know
0:27:45 someone who is vulnerable someone who is
0:27:46 ignorant someone who is not saying
0:27:49 someone who has disabilities these
0:27:50 people would actually need to be limited
0:27:52 immature yeah someone who's immature a
0:27:54 child doesn't know what's best for
0:27:55 himself so you need to be limited
0:27:57 and and if you don't mind me asking
0:28:00 what would
0:28:01 what would be the ethic that would need
0:28:02 to to put in here in order to to come to
0:28:05 the conclusion
0:28:07 that these people need to be limited
0:28:11 um these people need to be limited
0:28:12 because that is what's best for
0:28:13 themselves
0:28:14 okay but what's what we're thinking
0:28:16 about if they're not limited what will
0:28:18 happen if they're not limited
0:28:21 no but if they're not limited what's
0:28:23 gonna happen
0:28:24 if a psychopath is not limited or a pr
0:28:26 uh
0:28:28 utilitarianism yeah if a person you may
0:28:30 believe something is good for us
0:28:34 yeah but if if a psychopath is not
0:28:36 limited and a murderous psychopath so
0:28:39 what will happen yeah he may think
0:28:40 something is good for him doing killing
0:28:42 some someone it's good for him obviously
0:28:44 it's not good for
0:28:45 the person
0:28:47 or other individuals all right so what
0:28:49 if it's not good it's not good but why
0:28:51 is it not good
0:28:53 because he's is he's bit by the team
0:28:55 someone is good so is is it
0:28:57 deontological
0:28:59 it's consequentialist
0:29:01 so you
0:29:02 really in order to make arguments either
0:29:03 way
0:29:04 you have to bring in consequentialism
0:29:06 now
0:29:09 hedonism is what he's talking about yeah
0:29:12 hedonism is about himself like he feels
0:29:15 pleasure he's trying to maximize his
0:29:17 pleasure
0:29:18 by killing people yeah exactly right but
0:29:21 we're saying now if this person needs to
0:29:22 be limited yeah
0:29:24 because of the consequences of his or
0:29:26 her actions
0:29:27 that means to say we are talking about
0:29:29 what
0:29:31 consequentialism
0:29:32 or what is referred to as teleological
0:29:34 ethics yeah
0:29:35 it's also referred to as teleological
0:29:36 ethics yeah but also
0:29:38 limiting an individual could be better
0:29:39 for the individual itself right like in
0:29:42 the case of a child uh maybe like
0:29:43 walking towards a fire
0:29:45 limiting the child would be yeah but
0:29:46 still consequences right right yeah
0:29:48 there's still consequences right so so
0:29:51 you'd have to have another kind of
0:29:53 ethical way but still still yet these
0:29:55 are the arguments that will be made
0:29:56 right
0:29:57 but then if we bring in consequentialism
0:30:00 and
0:30:01 what do we need for consequentialism
0:30:04 we need to set a criterion what do we
0:30:05 want to maximize and what do we want to
0:30:06 minimize should you remember this yeah
0:30:09 so if we want to make maximize x or
0:30:12 minimize y
0:30:13 we want to maximize utility you want to
0:30:15 maximize which is utilitarianism now you
0:30:18 want to maximize pleasure pain
0:30:20 minimize pain you want to maximize the
0:30:22 amount of stable families that are on a
0:30:24 society
0:30:25 that's a consequence that you're
0:30:27 considering that that's one consequence
0:30:29 but
0:30:30 is that all that's important
0:30:32 and there are other consequences that
0:30:33 are
0:30:34 important so we have to set the
0:30:36 consequence first
0:30:37 these are the the desired options and
0:30:40 these are and now so there's a lot of
0:30:41 work that has to be done here we have to
0:30:43 see what's what's good what's bad what
0:30:45 do we want more of what we want less of
0:30:47 number one
0:30:48 okay if this happens now we have a
0:30:50 series of conditionals
0:30:52 then this and if this happens to send
0:30:54 this
0:30:54 if we emphasize the rights of the
0:30:56 individual
0:30:57 then this consequence will happen
0:30:59 and if we emphasize the right of the
0:31:00 collective then this consequence will
0:31:02 happen
0:31:03 and then you have trade-offs now then
0:31:04 you have tensions now
0:31:06 so we ask if you're a for a
0:31:07 consequentialist a pragmatic
0:31:09 consequentialist will ask
0:31:11 which one should we emphasize should we
0:31:14 in this action should we emphasize the
0:31:16 community interest the collective
0:31:18 interest
0:31:19 or should we emphasize the individual
0:31:20 interest
0:31:22 now from the islamic perspective which
0:31:24 is a segue into
0:31:25 what do you think the answer is here
0:31:29 should we emphasize the collective
0:31:32 collective interest is there any
0:31:33 situation where the individual interest
0:31:34 is
0:31:35 prioritized over the collective interest
0:31:37 that we've that we've spoken about
0:31:38 together in class
0:31:40 like
0:31:41 religion
0:31:43 yes
0:31:44 yes but sometimes
0:31:47 you know sometimes that can be the case
0:31:48 and sometimes not i want you to think
0:31:50 about
0:31:51 the particular lesson that we've done on
0:31:53 ghazali
0:31:55 and consequentialism and masloha and
0:31:57 masada
0:31:58 and remember there's two examples we
0:31:59 gave at the end of the class
0:32:01 we gave the example of tatarus human
0:32:03 shields
0:32:04 and we gave the example of the guys in
0:32:06 the ship
0:32:08 and we said
0:32:10 when you violate humans or like honor
0:32:13 and
0:32:16 okay let me remind you three people on
0:32:18 the boat yeah so he said the three
0:32:19 people on the boat right so he said if
0:32:21 there's three people on the boat and
0:32:23 one of them
0:32:24 the boat will sink unless one of them
0:32:25 comes off
0:32:26 he says under no circumstance is it okay
0:32:29 for one of them to be thrown off
0:32:32 even if the collective interest is what
0:32:35 is is
0:32:36 uh
0:32:37 will be met let's say in this situation
0:32:40 why did he say that if you remember
0:32:45 yes go on it doesn't affect the entire
0:32:46 society
0:32:48 there was three conditions he gave yeah
0:32:51 it has to be uh
0:32:54 certain yeah and then with the other one
0:33:01 so it has to be necessary
0:33:04 we have to know for sure that it's going
0:33:05 to affect everyone
0:33:07 and we have to have a very high range
0:33:09 probability that it will do so
0:33:12 so in a situation this is what islam
0:33:14 says basically
0:33:15 in a situation
0:33:17 where those three conditions are met
0:33:19 then the collective will will override
0:33:20 the individual will
0:33:22 if three things if those three
0:33:24 conditions are not met then the
0:33:25 individual will will override the
0:33:28 collective will
0:33:31 what exactly does it mean does it mean
0:33:32 like the entire society yes yes
0:33:35 so in a situation where it will
0:33:37 definitely affect the entire society in
0:33:39 some way
0:33:41 and that it will definitely happen or
0:33:43 there's a very high likelihood of it
0:33:45 happening
0:33:46 and that is necessary and we said the
0:33:49 necessity is connected to the five
0:33:51 things that islam came to protect
0:33:54 then the collective will be
0:33:56 will be emphasized over the individual
0:33:58 will and that is it solves if you
0:34:01 understand this it solves the
0:34:02 controversy of penal laws in islam
0:34:05 you know penal laws like the hadood and
0:34:07 stuff like that why is so many it's like
0:34:08 there are harsh laws in it like you know
0:34:10 uh islam
0:34:12 is
0:34:14 laws of
0:34:14 capital punishment in some situations
0:34:16 this that and whatever
0:34:18 now why
0:34:19 because in this situation it's cool
0:34:22 and it links to the rattle hams
0:34:24 which are the five things that islam
0:34:25 came to protect why there is the deen or
0:34:27 the the nephs
0:34:29 that's why you'll find
0:34:30 the honor of the person
0:34:32 all of the hadood are based on those
0:34:34 five things
0:34:36 so that's why we automatically think
0:34:39 islam is more collectivist than it is
0:34:40 individualist but that's actually not a
0:34:42 nuanced position that's not
0:34:44 understanding that the scholars came
0:34:45 without
0:34:46 sometimes it can be collectivist and
0:34:48 sometimes it can be individualist
0:34:50 it really depends on the scenario
0:34:54 and where it's clearly individualist
0:34:57 is in spiritual
0:34:59 affairs
0:35:00 that all of you will co
0:35:02 come here
0:35:04 you will come individually literally the
0:35:05 word individual is there like that you
0:35:08 will not be accompanied by anybody in
0:35:10 the grave
0:35:11 you will be alone in the grave
0:35:14 and you will come alone in the grave you
0:35:15 know and we believe in the day of
0:35:16 judgement you'll be alone there as well
0:35:18 you know and and so is
0:35:20 there are some aspects of islam which
0:35:22 are clearly
0:35:24 preferring individual action or
0:35:26 emphasizing individual action
0:35:28 or referring to it and others other
0:35:30 action earth things which are more
0:35:32 collectivist
0:35:33 so you'll find that you it's very
0:35:35 surprising because some people will
0:35:36 attack islam
0:35:39 on the basis that it's
0:35:41 supposedly collectivist
0:35:43 they will make the same arguments
0:35:45 against islam as they will make against
0:35:47 fascism
0:35:50 yes
0:35:52 is that necessary
0:35:54 it's necessary yeah
0:35:56 i'm asking if that is necessary
0:35:58 because you mentioned that uh to be
0:36:00 necessary to be able to be necessary you
0:36:02 need to fulfill five of the no no no
0:36:04 just one of the five
0:36:06 for it to be necessary so for example
0:36:09 uh
0:36:10 a woman being raped it doesn't save her
0:36:12 like if she's raped it won't it won't uh
0:36:15 be against her life but
0:36:17 one of the things that islam came to
0:36:18 protect is honor
0:36:20 and a woman being defiled in that manner
0:36:22 and raped
0:36:23 is against her honor
0:36:24 and so
0:36:25 that's one of the things islam came to
0:36:27 protect it's
0:36:28 as as high as uh
0:36:31 as the life
0:36:32 so you if someone like who said you
0:36:34 pointed a gun at you and said
0:36:36 rape this
0:36:37 woman otherwise will kill you you don't
0:36:39 have a choice of
0:36:40 doing that and saying this to otherwise
0:36:42 necessity because that woman has
0:36:45 something that you must protect
0:36:47 her individual right to honor overrides
0:36:50 your individual right to life at that
0:36:52 point
0:36:55 these things are very well reasoned
0:36:57 within the islamic paradigm that's why
0:36:59 in the situation situation if you throw
0:37:01 that guy out
0:37:02 you know
0:37:03 there's no honor in like his life now
0:37:05 it's life yeah okay so sometimes islam
0:37:09 will come and say
0:37:10 no
0:37:11 you know so um
0:37:13 the the you'll find now
0:37:15 oh right critiques of islam
0:37:20 even far-right critiques of islam you
0:37:22 know
0:37:22 it's pretty slow and unnuanced on
0:37:25 academic
0:37:26 but we need to know because this is the
0:37:28 kind of thing you're going to be
0:37:29 confronting
0:37:30 that islam attacks individual rights
0:37:32 islam attacks individual freedom
0:37:34 and islam is a fascist something you'd
0:37:37 hear from tommy robinson or something
0:37:38 like that yeah it's a fascist uh
0:37:41 thing
0:37:42 but if we think about this
0:37:45 there are aspects of fascism which are
0:37:47 compatible with social contractarianism
0:37:49 and liberalism
0:37:51 which is the contract theory social
0:37:53 contractor
0:37:54 and that's also compatible with islam i
0:37:55 mean there's no controversy there but
0:37:57 there are aspects of islam
0:37:59 and or liberalism which are not
0:38:01 comparable with fascism
0:38:03 this is how we solve the issue and the
0:38:05 examples or counter examples the lack of
0:38:07 which we've mentioned now
0:38:09 are strong enough to dispel the notion
0:38:11 that islam only considers collectivist
0:38:13 interest
0:38:15 it considers both
0:38:16 and sometimes it prioritizes one another
0:38:18 i'll give you one very interesting
0:38:20 example
0:38:23 you know if somebody
0:38:26 um
0:38:28 if somebody
0:38:29 curses
0:38:31 allah
0:38:33 you know
0:38:34 if someone curses allah
0:38:37 the reasoning they give for the reason
0:38:39 why there's no like safe punishment
0:38:42 for for that
0:38:44 in the same way that there is for other
0:38:46 things
0:38:47 is
0:38:48 because they say allah he can he can
0:38:49 take his own rights
0:38:52 but the hulk that he the creation can't
0:38:54 so in other words the creation
0:38:56 individual creations
0:38:58 they need their rights to be
0:38:59 recompensated
0:39:01 and in many ways there are overlaps
0:39:02 between liberal theory and islam by the
0:39:04 way like with with with wealth and money
0:39:06 you can under no circumstance can a
0:39:08 sovereign come and take your money
0:39:10 now some some particular groups of islam
0:39:14 will emphasize
0:39:18 you know if he whips your back and takes
0:39:20 your money
0:39:21 it's not saying that he should do that
0:39:22 he's saying that don't fight them
0:39:24 because
0:39:25 of the
0:39:26 consequences really it's not saying
0:39:27 anything other than that really
0:39:29 there's consequences involved there
0:39:32 but
0:39:33 the sovereign has no right to take the
0:39:34 money of the person or kill the person
0:39:36 or rape the person
0:39:37 so there are limits on everyone there
0:39:39 are checks and balances in islam
0:39:41 there are limits on everyone their
0:39:42 checks and balance islam and it's not a
0:39:44 fully individualistic system
0:39:46 and it's not a fully
0:39:47 you know collective system obviously at
0:39:50 the top of
0:39:52 the islamic system is a theological
0:39:54 understanding that god's laws ought to
0:39:56 be
0:39:58 respected
0:40:00 yeah all right we'll end with that
0:40:02 because i think that covers a lot of
0:40:04 ground and we'll continue speaking about
0:40:06 these matters
0:40:07 and we'll do this obviously in the
0:40:09 arabic language as well hopefully you've
0:40:11 enjoyed your time at home we surely have
0:40:13 here we've had a lot of food for thought
0:40:15 we're going to have a little bit more
0:40:16 fruitful thought now when we do our
0:40:18 discussions and hopefully
0:40:20 in the next session we can see each
0:40:21 other