Londoniyyah - Part 8 - Consequentialism | Mohammad Hijab (2021-11-25) #

0:00:13 to the eighth session of this course
0:00:16 today we're going to be talking about
0:00:17 consequentialism
0:00:18 and we've already spoken about
0:00:19 utilitarianism which is a form of
0:00:22 consequentialism and we're going to be
0:00:23 speaking about how that is so
0:00:25 and in the previous session we spoke
0:00:26 about deontological ethics which in many
0:00:28 ways is the opposite of consequentialism
0:00:31 or the main competitor to
0:00:33 consequentialism
0:00:34 so before we start we're going to read
0:00:36 as per tradition
0:00:38 the parts of the poems over the poem
0:00:40 which is applicable here
0:00:42 first luffy
0:01:03 right so consequentialism
0:01:06 what is consequentialism we have uh some
0:01:09 kind of definition here in the first
0:01:10 slide so let's read that
0:01:11 of all the things a person might do at
0:01:13 any given moment the morally right
0:01:15 action is the one with the best overall
0:01:17 consequences to put this in more
0:01:19 succinct terms
0:01:20 if action x causes y consequence then x
0:01:23 action is morally justified
0:01:25 now this as we've kind of just alluded
0:01:27 to in a sec a second ago
0:01:29 is the opposite of the ontological
0:01:31 ethics deontological ethics says that an
0:01:33 action has intrinsic value you're doing
0:01:35 it because it's good in and of itself
0:01:38 okay it's you don't lie because lying is
0:01:41 wrong in and of itself you don't break
0:01:44 promises because breaking promises is
0:01:45 wrong in and of itself
0:01:47 you don't uh waste your talents he said
0:01:50 uh can said because wasting your talents
0:01:52 is wrong in and of itself
0:01:54 you don't commit suicide can't mention
0:01:56 because committing suicide is wrong in
0:01:58 and of itself
0:02:00 why did can't come to this conclusion
0:02:01 because he used a categorical imperative
0:02:04 and a universalizing maxim
0:02:06 he said if everyone in society does this
0:02:10 for example lying it will cause an
0:02:11 impossible dysfunctional society
0:02:14 therefore the action in and of itself is
0:02:17 wrong
0:02:18 now the consequentialists will say
0:02:20 this is problematic because there are
0:02:22 examples where
0:02:23 for example the layer example that we
0:02:26 gave in the in the previous uh session
0:02:28 that the consequences of said action can
0:02:31 cause
0:02:32 a more severe outcome for example if you
0:02:35 don't lie sometimes
0:02:36 then you can die
0:02:40 like we see this actually it's not it's
0:02:41 not a abstract thing this is not
0:02:44 hypothetical we see people
0:02:46 for example being forced to say i
0:02:48 believe my god is bashar al-assad or
0:02:50 something or if you don't say this will
0:02:51 shoot you to death it will say that uh
0:02:53 krishna is your god or something these
0:02:55 muslim minorities are being persecuted
0:02:58 in india and obviously they don't
0:02:59 believe that
0:03:00 that is the case but if you don't say
0:03:02 this will kill you
0:03:03 now on this ethic you actually don't you
0:03:06 can't say that on this ethic and in any
0:03:08 way shape or form the ontological ethic
0:03:11 but the consequentialist ethic will say
0:03:13 actually the consequences of not saying
0:03:14 this is death and therefore
0:03:17 it's completely justified for you to lie
0:03:18 at this point which we would agree with
0:03:20 of course as muslims because we do have
0:03:22 as we'll come to see
0:03:24 uh what i refer to as sharia
0:03:25 consequentialism there are aspects of
0:03:27 the sharia which accord with a certain
0:03:30 consequence however the question is
0:03:32 when it comes to consequentialism what
0:03:34 is the base and what differentiates
0:03:36 consequentialism from utilitarianism
0:03:39 utilitarianism what is the master
0:03:41 question
0:03:42 what are the two things which we must
0:03:44 consider when making a decision on
0:03:47 utilitarian grounds
0:03:50 that's true but before that there's
0:03:52 something more fundamental
0:03:54 pain and pleasure okay
0:03:56 so you have two lords bentham said
0:03:59 you have the lord of pain and you have
0:04:00 the lord of pleasure and then as you've
0:04:02 mentioned
0:04:03 we discuss we discover what is the
0:04:06 greatest pain greatest pleasure for the
0:04:08 greatest number of people so you've got
0:04:10 two steps you've got what what pain and
0:04:12 pleasure is and then we call it
0:04:14 desirability for the sake of argument
0:04:16 and then you've got you know the
0:04:18 greatest good for the greatest number
0:04:20 now it doesn't have to be that you start
0:04:22 with desirability
0:04:25 you could start off by talking about
0:04:27 welfare
0:04:28 you could start off by talking about
0:04:31 instead of it being pain and pleasure
0:04:32 you can replace pain and pleasure with
0:04:34 anything
0:04:35 and still have a consequentialist
0:04:36 ideology
0:04:38 so you can say if it's about economic
0:04:40 growth
0:04:41 we are trying to create economic growth
0:04:45 so anything which creates economic
0:04:47 growth the ends justify the means
0:04:50 for example
0:04:51 so the reason what differentiates
0:04:53 utilitarianism from consequentialism
0:04:55 more generally is that utilitarianism
0:04:57 very strictly starts off with
0:04:59 desirability as the premise whereas
0:05:02 consequentialism can replace
0:05:03 desirability with anything else
0:05:05 can replace it with economic growth can
0:05:07 replace it with we want a society where
0:05:09 we see uh the maximum number of ex in
0:05:12 society
0:05:14 you know uh families
0:05:16 you could have family consequentialism
0:05:18 you can have uh
0:05:19 for you know you just fill in the gaps
0:05:21 you can have something right it doesn't
0:05:22 have to be pain and pleasure
0:05:24 directly
0:05:26 so that's what differentiates
0:05:27 utilitarianism from consequentialism in
0:05:30 a sense consequentialism is the master
0:05:31 key category
0:05:33 and underneath it you have a
0:05:34 utilitarianism so utilitarianism
0:05:37 all utilitarians are consequentialists
0:05:38 but not all consequentialists are
0:05:40 utilitarians
0:05:41 very straightforward okay
0:05:44 now
0:05:50 there are different types of
0:05:51 consequentialism
0:05:53 so i've there's four here which i've
0:05:55 mentioned in the slides that you can see
0:05:58 rule consequentialism dual
0:06:00 consequentialism egoistic
0:06:02 consequentialism friendly
0:06:03 consequentialism now you can read those
0:06:05 definitions in your own time
0:06:07 but obviously all of those different
0:06:08 types of consequentialism start with a
0:06:11 different premise
0:06:13 egoism is a it's an ideology in and of
0:06:15 itself which will actually recover by
0:06:17 itself
0:06:18 egoism is the idea ethical egoism is
0:06:20 that you should do whatever is in your
0:06:22 best interest
0:06:23 this is uh propounded by someone like
0:06:25 ayn rand
0:06:26 she's a woman who
0:06:28 had different
0:06:30 philosophies but this was one of them
0:06:31 she was an ethical legalist so anything
0:06:33 that is in your it's the opposite of
0:06:35 altruism anything that is in your best
0:06:37 interest that's the good thing to do
0:06:39 so ethical consequential egoistic
0:06:42 consequentialism
0:06:44 is an expansion of that now
0:06:46 but there you can have as john mackie
0:06:48 mentions in his book you can with this
0:06:49 you can have contradictions
0:06:51 because sometimes you can you can
0:06:53 you want something
0:06:55 but it's in contradiction with what
0:06:56 someone else wants and so the the the
0:06:59 consequences for the majority can
0:07:01 sometimes conflict with the consequences
0:07:03 for the individual
0:07:05 and these are the kinds of tensions that
0:07:07 you may find in consequentialist
0:07:09 ideology
0:07:11 now what i want you to think about with
0:07:12 the person next to you right now
0:07:15 is are the merits and demerits of
0:07:18 consequentialism what do you think makes
0:07:20 sense
0:07:21 about consequentialism especially in
0:07:22 conjunction with what we studied last
0:07:24 week or on saturday
0:07:26 what do you think makes sense about
0:07:27 consequentialism
0:07:29 and what do you think are already the
0:07:30 weaknesses of consequentialism let's try
0:07:32 and get the synapses uh working and
0:07:34 let's activate the schemata and let's
0:07:37 speak to the person next to us and let's
0:07:39 have three minutes and then we'll come
0:07:40 back
0:07:41 and see what you guys have to say okay
0:07:44 go ahead that's the problem yeah the
0:07:45 robin hood i think you can say
0:07:48 so
0:07:49 if you have um a majority of poor people
0:07:53 and to feed them you're gonna steal from
0:07:55 the rich or do something that's against
0:07:58 the law
0:07:59 that's um a form of consequentialism i'd
0:08:03 say the ends justify the means yes
0:08:05 correct this is actually it's mentioned
0:08:07 in the literature quite quite often
0:08:09 actually but consequentialists do have a
0:08:11 reply to this
0:08:13 and the reply that they usually use is
0:08:14 that
0:08:16 if the consequences of theft
0:08:19 for example as a whole to the society
0:08:21 are worse than the money that you'd be
0:08:23 given the poor people because a a
0:08:26 a society that has plunged into like uh
0:08:29 anarchical system of people stealing
0:08:31 from each other
0:08:33 is worse than so they'll make that
0:08:35 argument but this is definitely a very
0:08:37 valid point
0:08:38 and i don't see why you can't make the
0:08:39 argument as a consequentialist that you
0:08:41 know theft
0:08:42 because it doesn't justify the means
0:08:44 uh thefts can be uh at least acceptable
0:08:47 in some circumstances maybe not in all
0:08:49 circumstances but in some
0:08:51 circumstances and you can see the
0:08:53 compatibility therefore between
0:08:55 consequentialism and socialism for
0:08:57 example or even communism you know it's
0:08:59 not incompatible for consequentialism to
0:09:01 be
0:09:02 uh to be coupled with i one of those two
0:09:04 left
0:09:06 ideal what we do have by the way
0:09:08 sessions on marxism as well so yeah
0:09:11 like um the term was
0:09:13 i think you mentioned tyranny of the
0:09:15 majority yes in this case it would be
0:09:17 tyranny of the minority where you've got
0:09:20 a small amount of um
0:09:22 people who's hoarding all the money
0:09:25 uh that in that case that
0:09:26 consequentialism would be valid yeah so
0:09:29 this is and there's arguments to be made
0:09:31 on both sides so so the economic
0:09:33 arguments that are made
0:09:35 are usually made between supply-side
0:09:37 economists okay and what we call
0:09:39 key indian economists so supply-side
0:09:41 economies of which margaret thatcher was
0:09:43 one for example right the argument she
0:09:45 made
0:09:46 which is not completely false but there
0:09:48 are some issues of it which are you know
0:09:50 there are problems with it
0:09:52 is that when the gdp of a country gets
0:09:54 bigger
0:09:55 so in other words when you have more
0:09:56 rich people in the country
0:09:58 absolute poverty
0:10:00 is diminished more relative poverty of
0:10:02 course is is is is exacerbated so if if
0:10:07 yes or trickle down economics they call
0:10:08 it true for they call it trichoderma for
0:10:10 that reason so uh but it's interesting
0:10:13 because both
0:10:14 kind of left-leaning politicians as well
0:10:17 as as kind of like you know right-wing
0:10:19 economists or really liberal economists
0:10:22 yeah supply-side economists they both
0:10:24 make an argument from consequentialism
0:10:26 both of them make the same argument one
0:10:27 of them is saying that the consequences
0:10:29 of us
0:10:30 social socialist type structure
0:10:33 like the keynesian model is better
0:10:35 and the cons some other ones like uh
0:10:38 thatcher yeah uh adam smith uh
0:10:41 obviously he's a
0:10:43 philosopher
0:10:44 and they would make the argument that if
0:10:46 ever if if there are rich people in the
0:10:49 house
0:10:50 put imagine the house is economy
0:10:52 if there's rich people in the house and
0:10:54 the family then the whole family gets
0:10:55 richer
0:10:56 even though there's more inequality
0:10:58 between family members they're better
0:11:00 off yeah he's saying that the whole
0:11:02 country gets better off
0:11:04 so what a consequence say to you know he
0:11:06 said the tyranny of the majority
0:11:09 minority he said no no yeah but but the
0:11:11 tyranny of the minority is caused
0:11:13 because of the tyranny of the majority
0:11:15 because they are not spreading the funds
0:11:17 as they should which is causing the
0:11:19 terror of the minority having to have
0:11:20 people at robin hood yeah so that's what
0:11:22 that's what a socialist would argue
0:11:24 that's what someone like left-wing would
0:11:26 left-wing economist okay indian
0:11:27 economist would argue
0:11:29 marx would argue that of course
0:11:31 but his argument is more sophisticated
0:11:32 than that it's much more sophisticated
0:11:34 than that and that's why it needs a
0:11:36 separate treatment we have a separate
0:11:37 treatment for marx in fact his one's one
0:11:39 of the most difficult ones that we're
0:11:41 going to cover here because it requires
0:11:43 real thought uh he has a different
0:11:45 starting point yeah it's marxism is not
0:11:48 as easy to deconstruct as some of these
0:11:50 other ones
0:11:51 so yeah anything else from this side
0:11:54 merits and demerits by the way we're
0:11:56 talking about it
0:11:59 yeah so um we said one of the merits was
0:12:00 that it gets rid of all of the problems
0:12:02 of absolutes
0:12:04 so basically all of the negatives from
0:12:06 deontological ethics are kind of solved
0:12:08 through yes it's a very straightforward
0:12:09 it's a low-lying fruit and it's correct
0:12:11 so for example some of the things that
0:12:12 we saw the tensions that we saw with
0:12:14 deontological ethics for example you can
0:12:16 never lie but we're in a situation where
0:12:18 someone's about to die and so on that
0:12:20 that is solved in a sense
0:12:22 because we do consider the consequences
0:12:24 with this ethic
0:12:28 or like for example if someone says i'm
0:12:30 a consequentialist
0:12:32 and then can we say to them that okay so
0:12:35 to your world view
0:12:36 you will accept that for example
0:12:39 america bombing nagasaki hiroshima
0:12:42 to kill civilians to protect their own
0:12:44 people yeah no but this is difficult i
0:12:46 wouldn't use that example the reason why
0:12:48 i wouldn't use that example is because
0:12:49 you can make arguments for and against
0:12:50 just like the economic example because
0:12:52 if they will say look there's nothing
0:12:54 that justifies the killing of that many
0:12:56 people and in fact a nuclear
0:12:59 attack like this which could which could
0:13:02 which could
0:13:03 merit a response
0:13:06 okay that is the consequences for
0:13:08 society are
0:13:10 uh overall in in the negative
0:13:12 so a consequentialist could as as easily
0:13:15 say
0:13:16 okay
0:13:17 that
0:13:18 this is not good on consequentialism as
0:13:19 they you can make an argument for
0:13:20 consequentialism that is good uncle's
0:13:22 questions the the the missing component
0:13:24 here is as follows yeah
0:13:26 no one knows the future
0:13:28 this is the missing component like i
0:13:30 don't know what's going to happen in the
0:13:31 future okay
0:13:33 and because i don't know what's going to
0:13:34 happen in the future i don't know if i
0:13:35 do action x whether that's going to have
0:13:37 consequence why or not so what we what
0:13:40 people have to do
0:13:42 in society and economy and politics and
0:13:44 so on even a family
0:13:46 is that they actually have to weigh
0:13:47 things up
0:13:48 and that's a very natural thing to do
0:13:50 how probable is it
0:13:53 that if i do x
0:13:55 that y will happen negative consequence
0:13:58 on the flip side how probable is it that
0:14:00 if i do y z will happen positive
0:14:03 consequence
0:14:04 and this is the difficult thing that we
0:14:07 all actually do in our daily lives i
0:14:08 mean
0:14:10 the simple hebrews
0:14:12 like
0:14:13 it wasn't it was to prove that
0:14:15 consequentialism is
0:14:17 is it can be wrong
0:14:20 so the we know that
0:14:22 nagasaki and hiroshima were bombed
0:14:25 knowing that japan is already
0:14:27 surrendering right there
0:14:30 but we have hindsight now we can look
0:14:32 back yeah but when you're when you're
0:14:34 basing morality on consequentialist
0:14:36 ethics you're basing it in the future
0:14:38 sense you can use consequences you can
0:14:40 use the past yeah yeah that's what
0:14:42 that's the only thing you can use right
0:14:44 so but i i can do something wrong and
0:14:46 then you say against
0:14:48 just to justify look
0:14:51 this
0:14:51 was part it was part of the
0:14:54 yes it was part of the plan yeah how to
0:14:56 do it
0:14:56 yes yes yeah it makes sense yes it does
0:14:59 maybe it wasn't needed yeah yeah yeah
0:15:01 exactly you can always you could always
0:15:02 justify backwards
0:15:04 as well
0:15:05 yeah you're right about that but
0:15:06 what i was going to say was
0:15:09 there's something more fundamental here
0:15:10 that we need to think about right
0:15:12 we said that the the predicate base
0:15:15 of consequentialism
0:15:17 is say
0:15:19 on utilitarianism we said it's pain and
0:15:21 pleasure right
0:15:22 but on other systems like for example if
0:15:24 we talk about welfare economic growth
0:15:26 whatever it is that we're saying we're
0:15:28 going to start with
0:15:29 the question is going to always be why
0:15:31 should we start with that
0:15:34 what like we did with utilitarianism
0:15:36 right
0:15:37 we said was pain and pleasure the two
0:15:38 most important things they're the gods
0:15:41 that's what bentham said
0:15:42 yeah pain and pleasure of the two gods
0:15:45 okay why
0:15:47 why
0:15:48 david hume interestingly he said
0:15:49 something he said that if you ask
0:15:51 someone why they don't like pain there's
0:15:53 no answer after that
0:15:56 he said if you ask someone why you don't
0:15:58 like pain they will have there's no
0:16:00 it's such a base level thing that you
0:16:02 don't need to have an answer for it and
0:16:04 there is some truth in this and this
0:16:06 statement we're not we're not
0:16:07 disagreeing with that it is very
0:16:08 instinctive to believe that pain is bad
0:16:11 because it hurts you
0:16:12 yeah or in fact you can't say it because
0:16:13 it hurts me right
0:16:16 does that fall into that no this is more
0:16:18 consequentialism we're still on
0:16:19 consequentialism now what we're saying
0:16:21 is
0:16:22 what are the
0:16:24 consequent the consequences of what
0:16:26 we're trying to achieve
0:16:29 are we trying to achieve economic growth
0:16:31 are we trying to achieve okay we
0:16:33 the barometer for our success is how
0:16:35 many stable families there are on
0:16:37 society how many hospitals there are in
0:16:38 our society how many kitchens there are
0:16:41 whatever it is
0:16:42 whatever you start off with and say well
0:16:44 if i want
0:16:45 x
0:16:46 then anything which goes against this
0:16:49 in consequence negative or goes for it
0:16:51 in positive consequence is
0:16:53 a step towards the right direction
0:16:55 wherever x is whatever this thing we're
0:16:57 starting with how can that be justified
0:17:00 i want economic growth why should we
0:17:02 want
0:17:03 profit maximization over even revenue
0:17:05 maximization i mean there's a difference
0:17:07 by the way in economics why should we
0:17:09 want
0:17:10 um
0:17:11 why should we want uh desirability over
0:17:16 a stable society
0:17:19 why why is that the bar why is it yeah
0:17:21 exactly yeah because because we talked
0:17:23 about the consequences of that of
0:17:25 pornography and alcohol yeah it's
0:17:27 maximum pleasure but that's coming up
0:17:28 consequences you know which we see i was
0:17:31 reading a book called irreversible
0:17:32 damage yeah and was talking about how
0:17:35 you know depression and suicide in a lot
0:17:37 of girls for example as well have
0:17:39 increased so we live in a society of
0:17:40 maximum pleasure but we've seen we're
0:17:42 not seeing fruits you know we've seen
0:17:44 rotten fruits if you so can we not say
0:17:46 that your bar is maximum pleasure but
0:17:48 now it's coming at the cost of people
0:17:50 have it paid
0:17:52 you could say that absolutely you can
0:17:54 say that absolutely but you can what's
0:17:56 even what's even easier
0:17:58 is to ask them why should we maximum
0:17:59 pleasure yeah why yeah why it's just a
0:18:02 simple question of why like why should
0:18:04 it be this
0:18:05 like you ask a socialist why should it
0:18:06 be uh equality in economics you ask a
0:18:10 supply-side economic economist why
0:18:12 should it be economic growth
0:18:13 they all have an answer because this is
0:18:15 a better society it's more fair it's
0:18:16 whatever then you keep asking why then
0:18:19 you've got problems because the level of
0:18:20 justification will get harder and harder
0:18:23 then you have to get something which is
0:18:25 a meta ethic if you like that's going to
0:18:27 explain this which in the most in most
0:18:30 instances you won't have such a thing so
0:18:31 what would they say if i said for
0:18:33 example like why maximum pleasure and
0:18:35 they said um because it brings happiness
0:18:38 uh that's a circular argument this is
0:18:40 exactly what we found what what would
0:18:42 they say like imagine you're speaking to
0:18:43 yeah what would they usually say what's
0:18:44 their like
0:18:46 what we we we don't deal with what the
0:18:47 lay people say we deal with what the
0:18:49 with what the heads of this okay what's
0:18:51 what the heck say so who remembers on
0:18:53 utilitarianism you were here with
0:18:54 utilitarianism
0:18:59 so who remembers the justification that
0:19:01 uh that mill used
0:19:04 it's desirable because you desire kind
0:19:06 of thing yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah he was
0:19:08 using he was saying that desirability
0:19:11 is desired
0:19:13 because
0:19:14 it's desired
0:19:16 it's desirable
0:19:18 yeah yeah yeah
0:19:20 but he
0:19:21 yeah but the thing is
0:19:23 the only way this doesn't
0:19:25 this can make sense is if we if we talk
0:19:27 if we if we differentiate between
0:19:29 desirability and desire
0:19:31 now if we differentiate between
0:19:32 desirability which is the is and the or
0:19:35 that ought to be desired
0:19:37 then now you have the naturalistic
0:19:38 fallacy which we talked about we have
0:19:40 the how do you get from there is to the
0:19:42 ought how do something is the case to
0:19:44 how it should be the case
0:19:46 what david hume referred to as a
0:19:47 naturalistic fallacy because you can be
0:19:49 a certain way it doesn't mean you should
0:19:50 be you can be a certain way it doesn't
0:19:52 mean you should be that way
0:19:54 like for example if you say i was born
0:19:55 gay
0:19:57 okay i was born gay doesn't mean you
0:19:58 should be gay
0:20:00 no this is good because if you say i was
0:20:02 born gay therefore i should be gay
0:20:04 that's the naturalistic fallacy
0:20:05 according to david hume
0:20:06 if i was born gay therefore i should be
0:20:08 or if i was born incestuous if we take
0:20:10 the olympus complex seriously then
0:20:12 therefore i should be that that jump
0:20:15 is an unjustifiable jump that there's
0:20:18 that is a fallacy in fact
0:20:21 that's a statement filled with
0:20:22 philosophy
0:20:25 so you weren't there for the people
0:20:27 not felicity that's something else
0:20:30 you know but
0:20:31 you see what i'm talking about here so
0:20:33 there is or and if they that's why it's
0:20:35 very important
0:20:37 to it's just an infinite regress of
0:20:39 justification there's going to be a
0:20:40 button there's going to be a bottomless
0:20:42 pit of
0:20:44 no answers
0:20:46 and so we have to question what the
0:20:48 premise is
0:20:49 what are the consequences look at sam
0:20:50 harris he's not even in the literature
0:20:53 by the way because he's not a ethicist
0:20:55 or something like that but he's made a
0:20:56 little book about and he's talking about
0:20:58 consequentialism and stuff
0:21:00 but welfare and these things but once
0:21:02 again why should we have that
0:21:06 and then he's going to have some kind of
0:21:07 circular justification just like mill
0:21:08 did they all have some kind of circular
0:21:10 justification just like mill did because
0:21:12 there's no way out we should have it
0:21:14 because we like it because it's good or
0:21:16 that that's it's good because it's good
0:21:17 basically is that what i want to say
0:21:19 it's good because it's good that's
0:21:21 circular argument that's that's circular
0:21:22 argument 101 yes
0:21:25 like a better response on this side be
0:21:28 like maybe like going to like a more
0:21:29 biological level where you say that
0:21:32 pleasure is desired because
0:21:34 you know um
0:21:35 because it leads to our survival um as a
0:21:38 species but why is why is survival good
0:21:41 why should we why should we you see
0:21:44 you've moved to from uh from is to ought
0:21:48 you're assuming that survival is a good
0:21:50 thing
0:21:50 it's not necessarily assumed in ethics
0:21:53 that is a good thing
0:21:54 that's uh why is a good thing well
0:21:56 because evolutionarily we there's two
0:21:58 things that are connected
0:21:59 that existence is just better than
0:22:01 non-existence like being able to exist
0:22:04 and being able to survive and continue
0:22:06 to live is is just better no you
0:22:08 couldn't because hitler his
0:22:10 non-existence is better than his
0:22:11 existence for example and if we have the
0:22:13 world full of uh hitler's then you can
0:22:15 and on consequentialism right but even
0:22:17 even forget what hitler
0:22:19 that premise itself would be difficult
0:22:21 to prove
0:22:22 why is existence better better than
0:22:24 better than in what sense
0:22:26 in the sense that it's morally it's
0:22:28 morally superior but if you say it's
0:22:30 morally superior then you're already
0:22:32 begging the question so you're assuming
0:22:34 the premise in the conclusion
0:22:36 yeah
0:22:37 it's like you know there's a guy who
0:22:38 comes to speak his corner and he says
0:22:40 like stop having kids have you seen him
0:22:43 yeah you remember that guys he comes you
0:22:45 should have kids because this world is
0:22:46 full of you know
0:22:48 antenatalism yeah yeah and then he's
0:22:49 like you know
0:22:50 there should be no existence
0:22:52 so he could argue that in it
0:22:54 yeah it's good that you brought that up
0:22:56 i mentioned this before peter singer
0:22:57 who's a utilitarian
0:22:58 he he actually wrote that disabled
0:23:00 children can be killed
0:23:02 because the pain is more than pleasure
0:23:05 it's the pain it's more it's kind of
0:23:06 like that yeah but it's the pain is more
0:23:07 than the pleasure and stuff like that
0:23:09 and there's all these comparisons
0:23:10 between humans and animals
0:23:12 and black people and slavery and animals
0:23:14 and stuff like that that he makes in his
0:23:16 public uh because he thinks it's all you
0:23:19 know the same thing
0:23:20 but there was one thing that i saw peter
0:23:22 singer do that just a tangent but that i
0:23:24 found interesting and i used it in one
0:23:26 of the uh fundraising
0:23:27 because for him he's a consequentialist
0:23:29 right he's utilitarian and he said he
0:23:31 had this uh he made this ted talk
0:23:34 where in the background he had like uh
0:23:36 he said if a child died right outside
0:23:39 this
0:23:40 place that they're in yeah
0:23:42 is it any is it any different to someone
0:23:44 dying three thousand miles away and he
0:23:46 showed some kids in i don't know
0:23:48 whatever country it was
0:23:49 and he said basically all my worldview
0:23:51 is the same
0:23:53 you know
0:23:54 the truth is i mean we can go into the
0:23:56 technicalities
0:23:57 but i used that for a fundraiser one
0:23:58 time i said look
0:24:00 were you there
0:24:04 lots of hands up yeah we had lots of
0:24:06 hands up there we had a lot of money
0:24:08 yeah yeah so so anyway point being
0:24:13 long story short how do we prove the
0:24:14 premise you can't it's unprovable and
0:24:16 therefore it's better to get them to
0:24:18 justify themselves than for us to try
0:24:19 and justify ourselves that's the golden
0:24:21 rule in it
0:24:22 it's always better to put someone the
0:24:24 back foot
0:24:26 than be on the back foot and that's
0:24:27 something anthony joshua should have
0:24:29 learned before he went in for a second
0:24:31 that's what i should have known okay
0:24:35 all right now let's um
0:24:37 let's quickly go to the next bit of this
0:24:39 uh
0:24:41 so these are some of these from the
0:24:43 i don't know it's the encyclopedia the
0:24:45 online or the famous one this is some of
0:24:47 the arguments of full consequentialism
0:24:49 right
0:24:50 actions are transient things soon gone
0:24:52 but the basically the results are going
0:24:54 to stay forever
0:24:55 really is that an argument not really um
0:24:58 they say well
0:24:59 maximizing goodness is always better
0:25:01 than not maximizing goodness but once
0:25:03 again why and how and there's not really
0:25:05 good
0:25:06 arguments there arguments against
0:25:07 consequentialism
0:25:09 what about family bias like for example
0:25:11 i will mention this it's actually
0:25:12 mentioned in the poem as well like if
0:25:15 you've got two kids drowning in the sea
0:25:17 one of them is your own child and one of
0:25:18 them is another person's child
0:25:20 okay
0:25:21 now you've only got the resources to
0:25:24 save one of them which one should you
0:25:26 say
0:25:26 now we would say we have a family
0:25:28 allegiance
0:25:29 um that you should save your own child
0:25:31 first if they're the same age and the
0:25:33 same whatever right and then if you have
0:25:35 time you go for the other child
0:25:37 whereas a consequentialist or even an
0:25:39 individualist
0:25:41 doesn't have the liberty to make that
0:25:42 kind of claim because on what basis are
0:25:45 we prioritizing family kinship ties over
0:25:49 not prioritizing them
0:25:51 the consequence of this child dying is
0:25:53 the same as this child dying
0:25:55 you see so there's no reason to favor x
0:25:58 over y
0:25:59 so it puts into question things like
0:26:02 family ties why are you even providing
0:26:04 for your family
0:26:06 not the giving charity
0:26:08 some will say well actually if you don't
0:26:10 provide for your family your mental
0:26:11 health will not be in order therefore
0:26:13 you won't be able to do it and these are
0:26:14 good arguments but no no problem this
0:26:17 the same problems still apply
0:26:19 like you can't really justify family
0:26:20 ties in that sense and in the kinship
0:26:23 and community ties and patriotism and
0:26:25 all these kind of things you can't
0:26:26 really justify in consequentialism in a
0:26:27 very clear way
0:26:30 what about good intentions and this goes
0:26:31 back to the poem like because if
0:26:33 everything is to do with your intention
0:26:34 uh if everything is to do with the
0:26:36 consequences
0:26:37 then what about the intention and what's
0:26:39 mentioned in the poem
0:26:40 the mentions
0:26:42 is like for example
0:26:43 if
0:26:45 what differentiates
0:26:46 the surgeon
0:26:48 cutting the
0:26:51 the person being operated on with the
0:26:52 landsat
0:26:54 with the surgical tool
0:26:55 versus the criminal putting the knife
0:26:58 in someone's belly
0:27:00 it's only the intention that
0:27:01 differentiates the two things but if
0:27:03 consequences are the only important
0:27:05 thing
0:27:06 and intentions are not then really these
0:27:08 two are the same or to bring it closer
0:27:10 to home we can say this
0:27:12 the one who commits manslaughter the one
0:27:13 that commits murder
0:27:15 like if i run some kid over
0:27:17 because i'm driving erratically and i
0:27:20 didn't mean to
0:27:21 run him over it has the same consequence
0:27:23 as if i wanted to kill that kid
0:27:26 with my intention
0:27:27 so if we eliminate the intention we have
0:27:30 a real problem here because now we're
0:27:31 putting manslaughter and murder in the
0:27:33 same category imagine this
0:27:35 a society with this kind of logic
0:27:38 imagine what kind of uh but they would
0:27:40 probably argue that itself
0:27:43 is a consequentialist understanding
0:27:45 that
0:27:46 if because the
0:27:48 in
0:27:49 not putting intentions into the equation
0:27:51 but then consequentialism is all about
0:27:54 the thing itself having no intrinsic
0:27:56 value so it's all about consequences so
0:27:58 on on a purely consequentialist level
0:28:00 it's the same thing manslaughter and
0:28:02 murder are the same thing because they
0:28:03 have the same consequence
0:28:07 after you've murdered them it's
0:28:09 different if you force manslaughter
0:28:10 there'll be more consequences if you
0:28:12 murder them and if they'll just yeah
0:28:13 they can make those arguments for sure
0:28:15 they can make those arguments definitely
0:28:17 but on a purely numerical level like the
0:28:20 family is going to be upset either way
0:28:22 yeah you see
0:28:23 i mean premeditated murder versus
0:28:26 non-prepayment like
0:28:27 the family might feel the same way if
0:28:29 the person is being murdered
0:28:31 because of an act of passion versus the
0:28:34 person was calculating it before and
0:28:36 thinking about how to do it these things
0:28:38 are all demarcated in law and for good
0:28:40 reason because
0:28:41 it shows as we would argue at least it
0:28:44 shows us a level of
0:28:46 sinister
0:28:47 conniving
0:28:49 um
0:28:50 intention
0:28:51 when someone's thinking about it and
0:28:53 trying to execute it going back to
0:28:54 emmanuel kant's famous quote the cool
0:28:57 blooded
0:28:58 scrounger
0:28:59 he said the cruel the school the cool
0:29:01 blood is crowned was more dangerous than
0:29:03 the erratic one because he's planning
0:29:05 he's doing this he's doing that this
0:29:07 guy's more dangerous the cool-headed one
0:29:08 that could think with his without his
0:29:09 emotions
0:29:10 but these intentions are important in in
0:29:12 case law and we have seen
0:29:14 that to to blur the distinctions is
0:29:17 going to be difficult
0:29:22 so
0:29:23 is that are there some things which can
0:29:24 never be good now we talked already
0:29:26 about peter singer and killing disabled
0:29:27 babies
0:29:28 like can that be justified
0:29:31 and with that we'll transition to our
0:29:32 own system now the islamic sharia system
0:29:35 okay
0:29:36 because we've kind of covered two this
0:29:38 we've we've done a lot of um
0:29:41 kind of consequentialism we've gone into
0:29:42 the feminism and so on
0:29:44 but let's talk about sharia
0:29:46 consequentialism because there are some
0:29:48 principles in usual
0:29:51 in the principles of jurisprudence which
0:29:53 are consequentialist in nature which
0:29:55 which assess the consequences
0:29:57 and some of those principles are for
0:30:00 example abdallah or uzel or that harm is
0:30:03 to be averted
0:30:04 it's not like we don't we as muslims we
0:30:06 don't agree with this we agree that harm
0:30:08 should be averted
0:30:10 so much so that it's a principle in the
0:30:11 religion of islam
0:30:13 and we have uh
0:30:20 this is another principle which is that
0:30:22 warding off
0:30:24 that which is
0:30:26 corrosive or corruptive
0:30:28 or disadvantageous is preferred or
0:30:32 put forward above bringing forward
0:30:34 benefits so in other words in our
0:30:36 analysis
0:30:37 we first try and get rid of
0:30:39 negative factors before we
0:30:42 think about bringing in positive ones
0:30:45 this is these are all kawaii they're all
0:30:46 principles in the religion of islam
0:30:51 we have the principle of mafsa or the
0:30:53 idea of common
0:30:55 uh
0:30:55 you know not pain
0:30:58 you could argue is
0:31:00 corruption
0:31:01 how would you translate
0:31:03 corruption
0:31:05 if you get about if you get uh you see
0:31:08 if you get yeah if there's any muscle is
0:31:10 common interest on the other hand yeah
0:31:13 common interest what is in the common
0:31:14 interest of the people so we have a lot
0:31:16 of consequentialist reasoning but i'll
0:31:18 give you i'll give you another
0:31:21 example okay
0:31:23 and this is mentioned an essay of mine
0:31:25 that i wrote and you can find it on
0:31:26 camera called the uk yeah because we
0:31:29 mentioned this
0:31:30 before
0:31:31 corruption yeah all right so um as i
0:31:34 mentioned
0:31:35 al ghazali in his book
0:31:37 okay so just to give you a kind of
0:31:39 background of this
0:31:40 al juani wrote his book
0:31:42 and then
0:31:43 he wrote his book these are very
0:31:45 important books in
0:31:47 mustafa is one of the most compendous
0:31:50 and uh celebrated books in the uh
0:31:53 principles of jewish prudence in islamic
0:31:55 history
0:31:56 one of the top three books in fact so
0:31:57 much so that uh ibn he wrote like a
0:32:00 muhtasa or a summarized version of it
0:32:01 called roblox another which is basically
0:32:03 a summarized version of it
0:32:05 but he has he has a section where he
0:32:07 talks about muslah he talks about the
0:32:09 common interest
0:32:11 and he says if in order for
0:32:13 to be
0:32:14 or in other words for it to be actually
0:32:16 actualized three things must be look at
0:32:18 this this is very very sophisticated
0:32:20 that these even now consequentialists
0:32:23 have not mentioned these three
0:32:24 principles
0:32:25 and it's very very uh
0:32:27 very detailed he says three principles
0:32:29 have to be put in place
0:32:31 number one it has to be kuli
0:32:34 which means it has to affect the whole
0:32:36 muslim community for instance
0:32:39 or if not the muslim community whoever
0:32:40 is living under muslim rule which
0:32:42 includes christians jews whoever yeah
0:32:45 number two
0:32:49 means that we're sure that this is going
0:32:52 to happen
0:32:53 so you know someone could argue we'll
0:32:55 never know for sure what's going to
0:32:57 happen in the future you could argue
0:32:58 therefore
0:33:00 it's at least a high possibility over 90
0:33:02 yeah
0:33:04 and then the third thing is
0:33:06 it has to be a necessity if these three
0:33:08 things are not in place then you cannot
0:33:11 judge
0:33:12 on maslaha now wastaruri is connected to
0:33:14 the five things islam
0:33:17 came to protect
0:33:19 which is religion
0:33:21 which is
0:33:22 a deen
0:33:28 your intellect
0:33:30 your uh
0:33:32 your male your wealth
0:33:34 and also
0:33:36 you are your
0:33:38 your honor
0:33:40 yeah so if something
0:33:44 is a threat
0:33:45 to any of those five things
0:33:48 it's a direct threat to any of those
0:33:49 five things it becomes
0:33:51 necessary
0:33:53 to avert it
0:33:54 and it fulfills the condition of
0:33:58 so here let me give you some live
0:33:59 examples
0:34:01 and
0:34:02 we have to be careful with these
0:34:03 examples
0:34:04 there is an example of tatars
0:34:06 it's referred to as
0:34:08 and he mentions this
0:34:11 and he says
0:34:12 imagine a situation where there's an
0:34:13 enemy army that's going to overtake your
0:34:15 thing
0:34:17 and you are
0:34:18 forced to use human shields
0:34:21 like from the civilian population
0:34:23 he said is that ever justified
0:34:25 now al hazali comes to the conclusion
0:34:26 that it can be justified in very intense
0:34:28 conditions
0:34:30 okay he comes to that conclusion
0:34:32 obviously there are those who disagree
0:34:34 with al ghazali on this point
0:34:36 uh but he says imagine you're in a
0:34:38 situation where you're in the sea
0:34:40 and there's maybe three of you on the
0:34:41 ball yeah
0:34:42 and the sea is sinking the the ship is
0:34:44 sinking
0:34:46 and in order for you to be saved one of
0:34:48 you have to jump off the boat
0:34:52 no no no so he says
0:34:54 is it the question is it ever
0:34:55 justifiable to throw one guy off the
0:34:57 boat
0:34:58 he says it's never justifiable to do
0:35:00 that
0:35:01 why
0:35:02 because it doesn't fulfill all the
0:35:03 criteria
0:35:06 so it's not in the best interest of all
0:35:08 three of them
0:35:09 it's only in the best interest of two
0:35:10 out of three of them which is 66 percent
0:35:13 for it we call it has to be in the best
0:35:14 interest of 100 of them
0:35:16 even though there is discussion about
0:35:17 that some say well two out of three is
0:35:18 the majority blah blah blah but if
0:35:20 there's three of them and he throws one
0:35:22 out it's never uh possible and we
0:35:24 already spoke about by the way
0:35:26 the situation where if someone said or
0:35:28 rape your rape your own daughter or have
0:35:30 sex with your own daughter advice will
0:35:32 kill you
0:35:33 it's never
0:35:34 no one has ever said that that's
0:35:35 justifiable in islam but you have to
0:35:37 take the bullet basically that
0:35:38 consequences will never accept the rape
0:35:40 of one year old otherwise will kill you
0:35:42 no i'd rather take the bullet because
0:35:44 uh taking the bullet you can never
0:35:46 defile because it goes you're taking two
0:35:49 things
0:35:50 you're you're taking her honor the
0:35:51 one-year-old because she has honor
0:35:53 and you may be taking her life as well
0:35:55 or even if not you're really harming
0:35:57 that one-year-old
0:35:58 uh so these two things are in place
0:36:02 so so we these are the principles of
0:36:04 islam that we do have a sharia
0:36:06 consequentialism but it's very it's much
0:36:08 more complex and sophisticated than my
0:36:11 postulate then what do you have in the
0:36:12 west which
0:36:13 they don't have these principles
0:36:15 of
0:36:17 and it has to be this and it can be
0:36:18 working in this situation and this
0:36:20 situation is the ontological kind of uh
0:36:22 justification this you know they don't
0:36:24 have that it's usually either all
0:36:27 it's usually either or and so we have a
0:36:29 combination of both and for us to be
0:36:32 consequentialist there are criterion
0:36:34 that must be met
0:36:36 before such consequentialism is
0:36:37 justified
0:36:40 um yeah we talked about the two examples
0:36:42 now the case study we're going to be
0:36:44 talking about today is the age of aisha
0:36:48 you know this is one of the most common
0:36:49 questions that we find in the muslim
0:36:52 world or your prophet married a
0:36:53 nine-year-old
0:36:56 and the truth of the matter is
0:36:58 historically this is the strongest
0:36:59 opinion that he in fact this was uh
0:37:01 consummated at nine is there any other
0:37:04 opinions yes i mean could you could one
0:37:08 is one of this believer if they believe
0:37:10 that she was 16 or 18 no definitely not
0:37:12 because number one this hadith is mahouf
0:37:15 which is it's a it's a hadith which is
0:37:17 not narrated by the prophet by a sahabi
0:37:20 it's not murphy
0:37:22 and you can have academic discussion so
0:37:24 long it is as it is academic discussion
0:37:26 that's not trying to moralize
0:37:28 but you know you're going to find it
0:37:30 difficult
0:37:30 because it's in bukhari for one and
0:37:33 number two it's actually narrated by
0:37:34 aisha herself and in more than one
0:37:37 narration
0:37:38 so instead of going down the route of
0:37:40 being on the back foot and saying the
0:37:42 narration is weak
0:37:45 the real question is why is it wrong
0:37:48 and why is it wrong
0:37:50 why is it wrong to have intercourse with
0:37:52 someone
0:37:54 of that age for example yeah
0:37:58 why is it wrong to have intercourse with
0:38:00 someone at that age if we believe she's
0:38:01 be present pubescent etc is it on
0:38:04 consequentialist grounds or is it on the
0:38:06 ontological grounds now there's only two
0:38:08 options here
0:38:10 virtual ethics has nothing to do with
0:38:12 this
0:38:13 so either on consequentialist grants so
0:38:15 you say it's on consequentialist grants
0:38:17 so what are the consequences harm we've
0:38:19 just discussed
0:38:20 islam a legitimate consequence yes
0:38:23 but what we're saying is there was no
0:38:25 harm that was done because it was
0:38:27 societally accepted at that time
0:38:29 we're saying that the structures of
0:38:30 society had things in place for that
0:38:33 and you have to show us evidence at
0:38:35 least from the historical record that
0:38:36 there was harm
0:38:37 and if there was harm we would agree
0:38:39 with you
0:38:40 in fact and if there is harm we would
0:38:42 agree with you as well which is why we
0:38:43 don't say that muslims in this society
0:38:46 should go and do that because
0:38:49 the the sorry to say the 12 and 13 year
0:38:52 olds and 14 year olds of today are
0:38:53 nothing like
0:38:55 the 12 and 13 year olds in ancient
0:38:56 athens or sparta or
0:38:58 any any medieval time the structures of
0:39:00 society are different and therefore harm
0:39:02 is different some of them will come with
0:39:04 us and come to us and say well your
0:39:06 prophet married a nine-year-old why
0:39:07 don't you marry a nine-year-old why
0:39:09 would you allow your marriage a
0:39:10 nine-year-old to get married we say no
0:39:12 why not because it would harm her why
0:39:14 would it harm her because the society
0:39:16 does not support what it used to support
0:39:19 where you have 10 year olds in sparta
0:39:20 you were mentioning in the previous
0:39:22 session they knew how to fight better
0:39:23 than men do now in the american army
0:39:26 we don't have that culture no more we're
0:39:28 living in an age of education we're
0:39:29 living in this and that so we say if
0:39:31 it's a consequentialist reasoning and
0:39:33 the consequence is harm therefore we
0:39:35 agree
0:39:36 but we are denying that at that time in
0:39:38 that place that harm was there
0:39:40 and we have our arguments for that what
0:39:42 they say is deontological consequence so
0:39:44 we'll say you have to now the burden of
0:39:45 proves upon the one that's making the
0:39:47 claim
0:39:48 if the if this is meant to be wrong at
0:39:50 all times in all places
0:39:52 with no exception
0:39:54 no consequential exception then that
0:39:57 must be demonstrated
0:39:59 but then you'll fall on your face if
0:40:00 you're trying to demonstrate that
0:40:01 because how can you possibly fall how
0:40:03 can you possibly demonstrate
0:40:05 unless you want to use canteen i think
0:40:07 even then it's difficult
0:40:09 how can you possibly demonstrate such a
0:40:11 thing
0:40:12 so on both it's either consequential or
0:40:14 it's not what principle would um
0:40:19 deontological ethics what principle
0:40:21 would they like what's the universal
0:40:23 principle that's this might just break
0:40:25 in
0:40:27 once again the the main one that they
0:40:29 could argue is harm
0:40:30 but it's then we're but we're back to
0:40:32 stage one yeah
0:40:33 because the
0:40:34 the whole thing is
0:40:36 you know we are denying that at that
0:40:38 time in that place with that person and
0:40:39 that you know in those circumstances
0:40:41 that there was harm
0:40:42 and that we were saying that the burden
0:40:44 of proof is the one that upon the one
0:40:45 that's making the claim so how can you
0:40:46 prove instead of us being always on the
0:40:48 back foot and this and that say bringing
0:40:50 you know a video of some 10 year old
0:40:53 that has had her menstruation or
0:40:54 something like that you know and she's a
0:40:56 big woman now and there are many of them
0:40:59 by the way this we're not going to say
0:41:00 that in this society we're very clear
0:41:02 you know on this we have to be very
0:41:04 we're not saying in this society that
0:41:05 this applies because the harm we can see
0:41:07 the harm psychological the sight is
0:41:09 different but what we are denying is
0:41:11 that this is a categorical thing that is
0:41:13 wrong in all places all times that's
0:41:15 what we're denying we're denying that
0:41:16 it's con is contextual
0:41:18 any questions on this point
0:41:20 you know with this particular argument
0:41:23 i've never heard of any ancient source
0:41:26 or any source up until
0:41:28 the the 20th century where it's been you
0:41:32 know described as a bad thing it's a new
0:41:34 phenomenon yeah yeah and we kind of we
0:41:36 kind of went through this if you
0:41:38 remember when we were talking about the
0:41:39 age of consent and when it changed in
0:41:41 the uk it was about less than 100 years
0:41:42 ago and it was connected to education so
0:41:45 we can track the historical record on
0:41:46 when this thing changed and why it
0:41:48 changed in fact it was the first way of
0:41:50 feminism and the uh the the marriage act
0:41:52 and the consent all those kind of things
0:41:54 and they they connected it to education
0:41:55 and we can see it but just because that
0:41:57 is the case it doesn't mean that this
0:41:59 becomes a universal
0:42:01 moral all of a sudden
0:42:03 you know it's a very difficult argument
0:42:05 to make and you're right because i think
0:42:08 the first orientalist to mention this
0:42:09 that we've come across is david
0:42:10 margolias for example and this was in
0:42:12 the early 1900s
0:42:14 in the early 1900s where feminism was
0:42:16 becoming a thing and where these
0:42:17 arguments started to become more more
0:42:18 popular
0:42:19 but like we said before this was not a
0:42:22 universally understood thing
0:42:23 and it is context specific we are making
0:42:26 the claim that is context specific
0:42:28 if the claim that is if the claim that
0:42:30 it's not context-specific has to be made
0:42:32 then one has to say that in all cases
0:42:34 all times harm will be there
0:42:36 which we know is impossible that's an
0:42:38 impossible claim
0:42:39 you know uh
0:42:41 that would suggest that in any situation
0:42:42 where any one of that age were to do
0:42:45 that in any time in human history that
0:42:47 they would be harmed which is which
0:42:49 could shown be shown to be demonstrably
0:42:51 false
0:42:52 so what we're saying is that in today's
0:42:54 age yes
0:42:55 so we have to be very careful
0:42:57 not to conflate the ancient medieval
0:42:59 times and this is why us all is
0:43:01 important
0:43:02 like we're not we're not saying
0:43:04 the very segmental approach
0:43:06 you know
0:43:07 the the the contextual approach
0:43:09 approaches again hadith and saying well
0:43:11 no let's get the hadith and understand
0:43:13 does this apply today now
0:43:15 there's many hadiths were the slavery
0:43:16 things and this and that were you going
0:43:17 to apply no you can't apply
0:43:19 uh you know in south london they were
0:43:21 talking about um if you get a girlfriend
0:43:24 if you say you know get a girlfriend
0:43:25 basically and so she says i'm your slave
0:43:26 now you can sleep with her
0:43:28 have you seen this kind of fettles
0:43:30 it's these are the kinds of
0:43:31 ridiculousness that people come out with
0:43:32 because
0:43:33 they don't understand the pragmatic
0:43:35 nature and there is a pragmatic nature
0:43:37 yeah honestly we're lying the pragmatic
0:43:39 nature of islamic huh no it's not valid
0:43:43 it's not valid it's not valid
0:43:46 anyway with that guys we conclude we're
0:43:48 going to continue our discussion uh on
0:43:49 this very topic
0:43:51 and we're going to have one team that's
0:43:52 going to be asking this very question
0:43:54 and one team that's defending themselves
0:43:56 and then we're going to see how it goes
0:43:58 and for those watching at home i hope
0:43:59 you've understood our position and
0:44:01 you've under you have taken heed and
0:44:03 taken notes as you should have been
0:44:04 wasallam alaika