Why we need to Media Detox

Are you who you think you are? The modern world tends to emphasize the idea of personal autonomy. We are our own independent and self-sufficient creatures without the need for other social entities to define our identity. To be able to define one's own identity on one's own terms is considered the ultimate goal of the freedom of expression offered by modern society.

The reality is that we have, wittingly or unwittingly, surrendered much of the formation of our own personalities to outside forces of media. As Edwards Bernays said in his book Propaganda, “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” Television (and film) tends to be a passive medium, encouraging indolence, and creating viewers who can put their minds on autopilot for a few hours a day, leaving the real thinking to the big wigs of society. Unlike reading a book, which activates the imagination and pushes you to continually reform your thought processes, television allows us to be only receivers of the toxic sludge that passes for modern programming. So deep has is the penetration of media in our psyches that if we were to remove all the names, the cultural references, the imagery & icons from our brains, very little may remain.

They say that much of our personalities are formed by trying to be like others. This may seem a weakness, but truthfully this is fundamental human characteristic. Since childhood, human beings are imitative creatures, searching for external stimuli to inform one's own process of identity formation. This is why it is so important to have positive role models in one's formative years, they provide templates for us to build our own personalities. In the case of television though, the 'others' are not even people we see in the flesh or interact with.

Broadcast media tends to affect us on two levels. The first is the level of belief. Beliefs relate to whether we consider anything to be true or false. Did Armstrong land on the moon? Does gravity exist? Are cold showers better than hot showers? Our worldview on what is or is not falsifiable is based to a great degree on media perception. But such beliefs can be malleable when countered by evidence to the contrary.

The impact of media on the second level, that of attitudes, is far more insidious. Attitudes relate to our predisposition, our instinctual deep-seeded emotive response to situations. Once the media has influenced an attitude, it tends to stick and usually takes much more time and effort to shift compared to beliefs. When facts are presented that clash with existing attitudes, our beliefs tend to incline towards attitudes rather than reality. A classic example is how, several years after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the American public persisted in their bogus belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction despite ample evidence to the contrary. It was a belief that settled well with prevailing attitudes.

This is why we need a media detox. A conventional detox (short for detoxification) is an intensive process of removal of dangerous toxins from the body. A media detox follows a similar route. It requires weaning oneself off of the broadcast media that has dominated our lives. This can be done gradually or as a sudden break But in the end we need to free the captivity over of our minds and embrace life outside a box. And like a regular detox, a media detox would require dealing with some withdrawal effects, such as the slowing of time.

There may be no such thing as a 'healthy consumption' of television or film. Yes, there are movies, shows or channels that have substantive content, but being able to limit oneself to watching this sliver of useful content in a sea of time-wasting drivel is a huge challenge. We shouldn't be accomplices to our own mental degradation. Giving ourselves an extended media break can allow our brains some breathing room to be able to focus on life as it passes us by.

Britain and Palestine: A Curious History

A week or so ago, we received word of the announcement of a longer ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza to halt the ongoing Israeli massacre. Notwithstanding the ridiculousness itself of having a ceasefire between an oppressor and the oppressed, both sides claimed victory. From the Israeli standpoint, this is mere nonsense posturing, given the fact that they failed to end rocket fire into Israel or break the will of Palestinian resistance inside Gaza. Their much vaunted 'deterrence capacity' has flopped and this can't be painted as anything else but a strategic defeat. From the Palestinian perspective, while some measures of the blockade have been eased (for now), Gaza still remains a prison, and future promises of a seaport are unlikely to materialise given Israel's track record of deceit.

The timing of the conflict coincided with my reading of the book Bible and Sword by Barbara Tuchman, author of the famous Guns of August. The book explores the intriguing history of Britain's relationship with Palestine over the centuries, and the seeds to the conflict we seed unfolding today. Much of the history is quite revealing, though sadly it is colored by Tuchman's heavy Orientalist bias, her emphasizing exclusively the Jewish connection to the land, to the extent that the actual living residents of Palestine across eras hardly get much attention.

General Allenby entering a
conquered Jerusalem, 11 December 1917

Three seminal events define Britain's unique relationship with this sliver of Mediterranean land, according to Tuchman. The first is the bloody series of holy wars known as the Crusades. The second is the translation of the Holy Bible into the English language. And the third is the birth of the modern Zionist movement.

The Crusades were launched in 1095 under the call to reclaim Jerusalem by the head of Western Christendom, Pope Urban II. It was hardly a British affair; indeed, Britain as a nation-state didn't even exist at that point. Richard the so-called Lionheart is often painted as an English hero, but he hardly spent much of his life in the country. But the whole affair underlined a somewhat inexplicable obsession of the Western Church with the Holy Land that didnt resonate with Eastern Orthodox Christianity (no Byzantines were called to fight in the Crusades, only Europeans). Following countless massacres and defeats later, a truce allowed for  freedom of access to a steady stream of pilgrims from Europe to sites in the Holy Land, which remained under Muslim control.

This continued until the advent of the 16th century. Following the start of the Reformation, a drastic change began in England, with the diminishing of the papal authority and a process of secularization of many spheres of life. Part of this process was the translation of the Latin Bible in English, which took almost a century before culminating in the King James Bible in 1611. While the translation of a Bible may on the surface seem a rather mundane action, it had far-reaching consequences. Whereas previously there was an unassailable position of the clergy as intermediaries between the masses and the Latin Bible, translation the Bible represented a nationalisation of religion and emphasized a more private relation with God's Book.

An outcome of the translation of the Bible was to emphasize the Old Testament descriptions of the Holy Land and to lay special importance on the land itself, for example places such as Canaan and Jerusalem. For the follower of the English Bible, the traditional New Testament universalist message was somewhat downplayed for a new reverence towards sacred geography. The idea of the Jews as the special Chosen People of God was looked at in an almost literalist fashion. The rise of this new Protestantism coincided with the decision to allow the Jews, who had be expelled from England in 1290, to return.

Fast forward to 1897, and the first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland chaired by Theodore Herzel. However, prior to this, there were consistent efforts from the Evangelical community in England in the 19th century to return to the Jews to their supposed Promised Land, without much avail. The birth of the Zionist Movement, an ostensibly secular pesudo-nationalist political project dedicated towards a Jewish homeland, cemented a curious Christian-Jewish alliance for the same objective after centuries of mutual hostility and distrust.


The British Empire, top dog of the competing global powers, became the vehicle for the realisation of the early Zionist agenda. The execution of Zionist goals was done through a sly mix of appealing to Evangelical Christian sentiments and baser imperial interests among the British political elites, of men like Balfour, David Lloyd George, and others. The culmination of the efforts was the securing of the famous Balfour Declaration in 1917, making the Jewish project in Palestine an official goal of British foreign policy. Lloyd George, British Prime Minister at that time, ordered the Commander in Egypt, Edmund Allenby, to secure "Jerusalem before Christmas" which he delivered with two weeks to spare.

Perhaps given the controversial implications, Tuchman as an author doesn't give much credence to the theory that British elites felt that by granting the Balfour Declaration, they would be able to curry favor with the influential American Jews and secure the military involvement of the US in World War I. Lloyd George himself though admitted to such a line of thinking in his own autobiography. The Declaration it cannot be denied came at a critical time in the war, with significant advances by the Germans and Britain on the back foot. President Woodrow Wilson, who had campaigned in 1916 on the platform of keeping the US out of the war, made a dramatic U-turn to join a conflict that his country had no direct stake in. It proved the turning point.

Much apologies if this article seems like a boring rehearsal of history, but for those who are fans of mystery novels, history often plays out in a similar fashion. It takes a trained eye to be able to connect the dots and trace the path to where we are now. Bible and Sword offered such interesting historical tidbits once you can get beyond the Eurocentric dross. History, even sad history such as this, continues to fascinate me. I wish it were the same for everyone. 

Reviving the Sacred Market

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he famously replied "I think it would be a good idea" (if the West were to act as civilized as they claim to be). The same response can be apt to the question of what to think of the so-called free market, as extolled by so many modern uber-capitalists (even after the 2008 bank crash). It sounds so nice. The market described by them is an engine of prosperity, a bottomless pit of wealth-creation that rewards those who operate on innovation and ingenuity to serve the consumer. The reality though is anything but.

The globalized market of today is an ugly, inefficient, lifeless mess. It functions, through endless streams of advertising propaganda, to create insatiable demand among misinformed customers while ignoring their crucial needs. In fact, until the rise of public relations in the early part of the 20th century, courtesy of Edward Bernays, the demand-based economy as we see today didn't event exist. The supermarkets of the world, with their aisles and aisles of largely useless items, gives an illusion of choice. But underneath this veneer is the truth that much of the diversity of items found in locations across the world has given way to mass standardization. Visiting a mall in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia, with the exception of the absence of skimpy clothing, is hardly much different than visiting one in France or the US. Both are incredibly crass, spiritually vacuous, and reek of artificiality.

This free market is far from free. It encourages hoarding, allows collusion between mega corporations to rig and manoeuvre the market, and favours larger multinational monopolies over small local business. It periodically jeopardizes the public welfare at private expense through what the business sector refers to as 'externalities'. On a larger level, it functions as a cover for the pyramid scheme known as global finance.


Contrast this with the humbly elegant markets that existed for much of Muslim history, and you will realize what we have lost. The true free markets of the Muslim world, of which only a few remnants remain, were vibrant centers that pulsated with life and energy. The hustle and bustle, the pungent aroma of spices, the arresting sight of colourful pigments and dyes, the cacophony of the haggling merchants, all contributed to make the Muslim market a unique sensory experience. The real jewels of the medieval Muslim world were not the Taj Mahal or the Hagia Sophia. They were the fez cap makers of Tunis and the spice traders of Cairo. They were the Kapali Carsi of Istanbul and the carpet dealers of Isfahan. Commerce was the hallmark of Muslim civilisation.

Yet there was a sense of sacredness to Muslim commerce. The market would traditionally be located in close proximity to the Masjid, and this was not by accident. There was no dichotomy between earning a lawful income and performing salah, between the mundane activities and the holy, all were considered worship. Our Prophet (pbuh), himself a merchant, spoke of the high station granted in Paradise to righteous merchants, and trade was an important vehicle for propagating the faith to all corners of the world.

The principles of the Muslim market were beautiful in their simplicity. There were no market barriers to access for any prospective merchant who wished to ply his trade. There would be minimal intervention by the state in the market activities, except mainly to verify the accuracy of weights and measures, quality of the goods and the purity of the coinage. Prices would not be fixed, as this violated the tenet that demand and supply are forces under the control of God. In fact, the entire ethos of market participation was to foster a sense of independence from worldly actors and a pure submission to the Almighty, a far cry from the 'paycheck mentality' of today.

The reason the market thrived was that it was an organic product of the community that surrounded it. Major crime was rare. The customers and fellow merchants would all be family members, friends or close acquaintances. This communal aspect predominated over economic considerations much of the time. For example, it was not uncommon for a shopkeeper to close shop early once he had earned a sufficient livelihood for the day, to give his neighbouring shopkeeper a chance to make his earning. This would be unthinkable nowadays. This symbiotic relationship between the market and tight-knit community can explain why both suffered simultaneously in the post-colonial phase in Muslim lands.

Traditional bazaars relied on the fraternity and integrity of the merchants to survive. Rather than external government pressure, harmony was maintained through a sense of solidarity and internal control nurtured by the faith. But times have changed. Even the most basic market actions, such as the classic price bargaining (with an assortment of verbal and non-verbal cues depending on the time of day and seniority of the customer) have largely disappeared.

While Muslim modernists seem wholly fixated on retrofitting the existing financial architecture to transform it into the ideal 'Islamic economy', they often ignore the centrepiece of the market. Re-establishing the classic Muslim market is essential for any effective programme to combat riba. The idea of the market is not dead, but its spirit lies dormant within the Muslim communities, waiting to be revived.

Some encouraging efforts have been made in this regard. I will like to call the attention of all readers to an upcoming event planned by the UNRIBA campaign on 23 August to discuss with some local and international freemarketeers over their attempts to return to the classical market. Their work is inspiring, but more needs to be done by the rest of us. It's high time we brought back the market.

Please click here for more information on the event.

Being a Techno-skeptic is a good thing

I have expressed my reservations earlier in the blog over the use of smartphones. But I will admit that a certain part of my hesitancy to purchase one has been personal bias; I find the multitude of Apps superfluous and distracting, the wiggling gestures of our fingers on the touch-screen looks plain silly, and the degree of hyper-connectivity afforded by smartphones invades what's left of one's private life. Having said all that, circumstances may force their hand and I may have to swallow my pride and get one of those darned machines. My caution is not simply restricted to this piece of gadgetry, but other types of technology as well. It's the reason I proudly proclaim myself to be a techno-skeptic.

Techno-skepticism is a philosophy that states that new technology must be critically analysed and judged before being adopted. Claims of new technology must be proven, pros and cons must be discussed, and the adoption process must be slow and measured rather than rushed and clumsy. For the techno-skeptic, the onus is on the technology to justify itself as contributing something of significant value to one's life and to not be an unnecessary adornment. Whether it is the latest product on the market or in vogue is irrelevant.

Techno-skepticism should not be confused as the irrational fear, hatred or rejection of all new technology (that's technophobia). Rather, it is a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to technology that takes a holistic view. A certain degree of suspicion can be healthy.

Two factors are of paramount importance for techno-skeptics: simplicity and humanity. Simplicity is not to suggest that we resort to living like cavemen. Technology that paves an easier path to accomplishing our objectives shouldn't be rejected, but technology that adds extra layers of complexity and confusion should be balanced against its return value. Very often, a simpler and properly designed device can be as helpful as a more complex one. The finer points of older technology often go unappreciated once they are chucked away.

The second factor is to remember that technology is meant to serve human beings and not the other way around. To uncritically accept new technology without any consideration for the larger social, communal and even spiritual ramifications can be hazardous. Technology that only ends up dehumanizing us is quite simply not worth it no matter how flashy it seems.

Technophiles who indulge in blind love and almost pseudo-worship of any new device on the market can fall easily prey to false claims and marketing tricks. Such people have an almost utopian worldview when it comes to technology, that any human desire can be satiated, any inconvenience dealt away with, and any obstacle overcome as long as there's a device designed to do so. Techno-skeptics are thus in a noticeable minority, while lust for technology has become the cult of the majority.

Employing the techno-skeptic approach in your own lifestyle can yield surprising results. I can list a few examples, but perhaps you can be a bit creative and think for yourself. You may take for granted how much time and effort it takes to cater to all the devices in your daily routine, and may not realise how burdensome it has become. Or, more likely, you may think I'm a crank and nostalgic and perhaps should be writing about something else.

Is this really 1914?

For those historical-minded among us, we recently witnessed the Centennial Anniversary of the commencement of World War 1, which began on 28 July 1914. More than any event in modern history, WW1 was truly epoch-changing in its consequences. Prior to the war, the world was divided into competing empires, each Crown gaining its legitimacy through an appeal to a higher religious claim, be it the Ottomon Muslim Caliphate, the Christian Eastern Orthodox Czar of Russia or the Catholic Church of Western Europe. Post-war, and 9 million deaths later, there was an entirely different landscape: secular nation-states replaced imperial strongholds, and a religious world order was done away altogether. The partitioned Muslim world in particular is still reeling from the effects of what was known as the "The War to End All Wars" (which it clearly was not).

With its 100th anniversary, many Western historians still ponder as to what exactly caused this breakout of war, even if they are agreed that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the trigger. Yet an even more interesting discussion is taking place; are we at the cusp of a new global conflict? With nuclear-armed Russia and NATO at seeming loggerheads over Ukraine and civil war, bloodshed and anarchy spread over much of the Middle East, the situation seems quite precarious. The ingredients seem there. Yet much of the prognostication over whether we may be heading for WW3 or not (for example, here and here) also has at its heart an idea an interesting conception of history, that history is patterned.

In the ancient world, the vision of history was either one of decline (that history has departed from a glorious utopian age to gradually one of increasing ignorance and decadence) or cyclical (history will continuously experience peaks and troughs, rises and falls). Only in the modern West over the last 500 years did we begin to view history as one of progressive incline, with each era being more enlightened and just plain better, be it in the areas of scientific knowledge, material well-being or cultural sensibilities.

As history marches onward, and with each passing century, we can look back and reflect on how far we've trodden. In these moments of reflection, we are struck by the occurrence of seminal events that echo those which have occurred before or after by almost a century.  Major events which occur at around the same time in one century often have a parallel event at approximately the same year in the century that has passed or is to come. Are the parallels mere coincidences, or do they suggest that there are deeper patterns to history that we have yet to uncover?

A classic example is the dual assassinations of U.S. Presidents Abraham Lincoln (1865)  and John. F Kennedy (1963), both with far-reaching implications. The presidents were elected to the House in 1860 and 1960 respectively, and both purportedly assassinated by assassins with three names you are likely to remember (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both also were known to dabble in some interesting monetary experiments, in Lincoln's case being the Greenbacks, and Kennedy by issuing silver certificates. The more you dig beneath the surface, the more similarities arise.

In the early 1870s, the world powers, headed by the British Empire, at the time colluded to introduce the world's first international gold standard, allowing for convertibility of paper money into gold by a fixed standard ratio. Conversely, this time period is marked by historian as the exact peak point of British power, following which the empire when into imperial decline and steadily experienced a loss of financial capital and dominance. Nearly a 100 years later, in 1971, the super power of the time, the USA, made the decision to do away with the gold standard altogether, now having the dollar alone as the reserve standard for the world with gold no longer functioning as money. Strangely, the exact period is also seen by analysts as the peak of US dominance, with the de-industrialization, deregulation and Reagonomics slowly but surely whittling the might of the super power following that.

Not all parallels have to be exact matches, many are opposites as well. In the same way that 1914 ushered in a time of conflict between competitive nation states, nearly a 100 years earlier in 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held in Europe to settle the Napoleonic Wars, with a diplomatic settlement leading to a century of peace and prosperity in the region between the colonial powers.

There are many, many more example to bring up of history repeating itself in significant ways. Moving to the present moment, there is in the background undeniably a sense of foreboding, that the troubling hotspots in different parts of the world are only a sign of larger conflagration to come, threatening to engulf all of Mankind. Perhaps this may seem a tad fatalistic though. In the end, we also must believe in human agency as being able to set our own destiny, and the destiny need not necessarily be destruction. Nevertheless, what we can expect soon to come in the world stage are events that will likely dictate the course of the next century, assuming human beings survive that long. As the Chinese may have said, "may you live in interesting times."

The Secularization of Money

Paper money was created by the Devil. At least, according to Goethe.

The famous German writer and statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832) wrote the two part epic of Faust, considered one of the finest works of German literature. In Faust, readers are told the story of a young scholar Faust who wagers his own soul in a deal with Mephistopheles (Shaytan) for the ability to allow him to fulfill his desires on the Earth.

In the second part of the epic, Faust and Mephistopheles attend the court of a ruler whose empire is in financial doldrums and stagnancy due to deflation. Noticing that the medium of currency is gold, the Devil convinces the ruler to adopt the use of paper money (issued as promissory notes in exchange for gold yet to be unearthed from the ground). While at first seeming to restore the kingdom to financial health, in time a paper-printing bonanza leads to excessive spending and further problems.

The scene here in Goethe's Faust was seen to be a commentary on paper money usage during the French Revolution. However, the link between money and the sacred implied during the story hints at something far more profound. What made precious metals like gold and silver so revered, so special that they functioned as money for so long, and why was a shift from them considered such a perversion?

Secular and Sacred

The term 'secular' seems to be vastly misunderstood today. Secularization is a process of demystification and desacralisation, to render something as ordinary and exclusively worldly. It is a process that can take place in politics, economics, and even in normal everyday life. Secularization is not anti-religious but irreligious. It is framed not in opposition to religion and Revelation but in complete ignorance of it altogether.

The sacred is the opposite, it is a worldview that entails that processes and items of this world are suffused with a extra-dimensional aspect of blessedness beyond the mere appearance. The spiritual and the transcendent are aspects of reality that cannot be measured or quantified but nevertheless are vitally important.

From the secular perspective, what we see is what we get, and that is that. Sacredness is sucked out of reality as if through a vacuum cleaner, and whatever is left behind is to be valued in terms of its mere utility and human convenience.

It is erroneous to assume that money has somehow escaped the secularizing process. In my previous article, I briefly explained the transition from commodity-based money to their modern paper and digital counterparts. This transition didn't take place in a vacuum, but as part of a larger secularizing change undergoing mankind where religion ceased to be an active force in public life, and in the larger political and economic spheres, including the monetary. Any analysis on monetary history that doesn't recognize the spiritual value of both gold and silver, and how they were stripped of this quality, is incomplete.

Special Metal

The natural world has always been averse to the presence of metals. A stroll through a forest or woodlands will never reveal metal objects, which tend to remain hidden in mines or underground (the 'womb of the Earth'). Exceptions to this rule were both gold and silver, which on the riverbeds and in sandy deposits would reveal themselves openly to the World, and were hence viewed as "an extra-natural state of metallic existence" in the words of Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Until modern times, gold and silver were seen as hallowed objects with a connection to the spiritual realm. The ancient Egyptians were renowned for their decorative use of gold on their holy sarcophagus's. According to the Jewish tradition, when God gave Musa (pbuh) the Ten Commandments, He also instructed him to construct a Sanctuary and tabernacle for His worship, saying, "thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold around about" (The Power of Gold, 2000) Silver was also used as a traditional healing element, even to this day.

It is well known that the gold Dinar and silver Dirham were the standard means of currency for most Muslim history. Allah (sbt) in the Quran mentions gold and silver as items of natural value for mankind. "Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return." (Surah Al-Imran, 14) Beyond this, gold and silver possess Paradisiacal qualities given the numerous references to the presence of the metals in the Afterlife in the Quran and Hadith. Yet modern Muslims conveniently overlook these references and their deeper implications.

The ancients recognized the coming of an Iron Age when civilization will adopt a ubiquitous use of metal (think bridges, cars, skyscrapers, etc). This was considered as the last age of human history and a time of untold misery and immorality. Yet the predominance of this metallic state of life has led paradoxically to a devaluing of gold and silver as only anachronisms to the modern man.

Current Debate

In the Muslim world, there is a burgeoning movement to bring back the use of Dinar and Dirhams to ensure that the economy conforms to the Shari'ah, and this faces stiff resistance from Muslim defenders of paper money. Much of this debate focuses on whether money should have intrinsic value and how money should be free from the effects of inflation.

These are no doubt important points that should be brought up, but the spiritual element of money is also a dimension that needs to be emphasized to ensure that the dialogue regarding money in Islam it itself not expressed in solely secular terms. The value of gold and silver is not just gained due to scarcity and shininess, but the value is itself a gift from the Divine. To acknowledge this requires us to remove the modernist blinkers put on us by centuries of economic indoctrination.

We must come to accept that using gold and silver in the market is not just a economic transaction, but an act of worship, and paper can no longer be considered an adequate substitute.

Highly Ethical, Deeply Immoral

Do you consider yourself a good person? Is it because you pay your bills on time, don't lie on your tax forms, and avoid crossing a red light? Or do you think there is more to being a good person?

Part of the myth of progress is the assumption that we as moderns have reached the apex of ethical judgement, that we have crossed the path from barbarism to civilization. In other words, we have evolved from a state of crude moral attitudes to one of advanced cultured sensibility. This prejudice towards the past is not as pronounced as it used to be, with the slow-moving collapse of much of modern society giving many a reality check. What lies at the root of this collapse I feel is the confusion over two key concepts of ethics and morality. They are not the same, and a conflation of the two is only a symptom of a larger problem.

What is the difference?

Who is considered 'good' used to be objectively understood. 'Goodness' was a quality that was recognizable based on an individual's character and conduct. Yet today, the universality of goodness no longer seems to be there. Whether you acknowledge someone as good depends heavily on whether you come from a ethical-based mindset or a moral-based mindset.

Ethics (from the Greek 'ethos' meaning custom or habit) relates to the rightness and wrongness regarding the rules of conduct for a person as determined by their society, group or culture. The thrust behind it is that certain types of conduct are either approved or disapproved based on society's understanding of them. Ethics are externally defined by others, and as such are more flexible in the application depending on social, legal and professional perimeters.

Morals relate to the belief of the inherent goodness/badness of our actions and intentions based on higher principles. Morality transcends typical social and cultural boundaries and usually remains less subject to changes or alterations. Morals usually connect to deeply held beliefs of a higher order of existence and the denial of a morally neutral universe.

From the above, it is clear that the most highly ethical person may not necessarily be following any moral code whatsoever, whereas for a deeply moral person choosing to follow an ethical code depends on the degree to which that code corresponds with his or her belief system. Ethics in essence is an externally manifested code while morality is internally driven.

A Bit of History

Ethical theory from Aristotle onwards and throughout the ancient and medieval periods had a strong teleological emphasis, focusing on discovering the best path for life so as to reach a final goal for mankind. Religion provided a deep source of guidance in this effort. The Abrahamic traditions in particular sought their ethical inspiration from the Revealed Texts. Ethical obligations were derived from the moral precepts of Divine Inspiration, and in many cases from their legalistic frameworks as well. Indeed, until the 18th century, "this conviction that there is a divine source of absolute ethical obligation remained almost unchallenged in the history of ethics." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968)

With the agreed foundation of the Divine as the source of all moral authority and ethics, there was still a wide spectrum of thoughts on how ethics should be formulated, for what intentions and what are the best ways of fulfilling ethical obligations.The range of opinions of philosophers, theologians and scholars from Plato to Al-Ghazzali to Aviccena to Thomas Aquinas is too vast to be covered here in sufficient detail though.

Things began to change with the onset of the secular age. Beginning with William Ockham in the 13th and 14th centuries, the idea was expounded that "moral good or and evil have nothing to do with the internal character of man or his action but rests on the external attribution of a moral quality." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968) This marked a radical departure from previous theories, in a way externalising the judgement of moral actions rather than looking at morality from what is within.

Gradually, with the emergence of the Deist philosophy in England, ethics was detached from religion as a subject of study, implying that religion may not be the sole source of guidance. Instead of God, "the general will" (or la volonte generale as stated by Rosseau in The Social Contract), which is the collective judgement of the people on moral and social issues, became the criterion for ethical standards. From here emerged a major strand of ethical thought that persists today: utilitarianism (doing something with the intention of the maximizing of social benefit at the least social cost).

The bottom line was that ethical norms were ceasing to be conditioned by moral upbringing, and more by social conventions and pure reasoning.

Where Does that Leave Us?

The modern world concentrates on ethical guidelines with an almost tacit acceptance that long-standing moral norms are no longer publicly relevant. Ethics itself has been reduced to manual of best practices for organized social behaviour rather than a means of moral elevation. There is a difference between being a good worker or a good citizen and being essentially a good human being. You can have individuals who follow all the rules that society puts before them meticulously, but in the end have a vacuum where a soul should be.

The British columnist Peter Hitchen, wrong though he may be on many issues, was correct is stating in his book The Rage Against God that, "to be effectively absolute, a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter." The idea that we are in a morally neutral universe with no objective standard of good or bad is an anathema; yet in much of our day to day functioning, that in practice is how we live our lives. At the very least, knowing the distinction between ethics and morals is important for realising that when it comes to human behaviour, all that glitters is not gold bullion.