From apocalypticism to eschatology: a comparative analysis of western “Utilitarianism” and Islamic “Maṣlaḥah”

Mohammad Abul  Mufazzal; Naseem Fatima  Chaudhary

doi:10.26555/ijish.v7i1.9705

Authors

Mohammad Abul Mufazzal Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
Naseem Fatima Chaudhary Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26555/ijish.v7i1.9705

Keywords:

Western Utilitarianism, Islamic Maṣlaḥah, ethics, community welfare, Societal Implications

Abstract

By employing Utility tools or moral conducts based on “the greatest good for the greatest number”, the Utilitarian mechanism maximizes the Utility for majority. This ethical theory is evidently grounded in human reason free from any transcendent revelation which is all the way expounded as a purely secular product of renaissance. While, in contrast to “Utilitarianism”, the Islamic “Maṣlaḥah” transcends the spatial structure and materiality to connect the life hereafter, hence the immediate good and bad of this world are but the function for the final good or bad pertaining to the Afterlife. Reviewing and analyzing relevant contents, this paper explores the key differences and similarities between Western “Utilitarianism” and Islamic “Maṣlaḥah”. Firstly, the paper identifies that both “Utilitarianism” and “Maṣlaḥah” aim to promote human welfare and happiness, but differ in their approach to defining and measuring the concept. Secondly, the paper examines the role of reason and revelation in shaping ethical decision-making in both traditions. Finally, it discusses the practical implications of “Utilitarianism” and “Maṣlaḥah” in contemporary societies. While “Utilitarianism” is often associated with individualistic and secular societies, Islamic “Maṣlaḥah” is deeply embedded in Islamic culture and tradition, which emphasizes community values and religious obligations.

References

Abdulhameed, N. M. (2021). Ethical Dimension of Maqasid al-Shari’ah and its Implication to Human Capital Development. IJISH (International Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities), 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.26555/ijish.v4i1.2621

Al-aaidroos, M., Jailani, N., & Mukhtar, M. (2016). The Utilitarian Decision Making from Islamic Perspectives: Review and Settlement Attempt. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 6(6), 896. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.6.6.1378

Al-Būṭī, M. S. R. (1973). Ḍawābiṭ al-Maṣlaḥah fī al-Sharī ‘ah al-Islāmiyyah. In Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah.

Al-Ghazali, A. (1961). Faisal At-Tafriqa Bain Al-Islam Wa-Z-Zandaqa. Dar Ihya’ Al-Kutub Al- 'Arabiya.

Al-Ghazali, A. H. (n.d.). Al-Mustafā Min ’Ilm Al-Uṣūl (Vol. 1). Dār Al-Fikr.

Al-Raysūni, A. (1995). Naẓariyat Al-Maqāṣid ’Inda Al-Imām Al-Shāṭibī. Al-Ma’had Li Al-'Ali Al-Fikr Al-Islāmī.

Armitage, D. (2007). The Declaration of Independence. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674020276

Bentham, J. (1781). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In History of Economic Thought Books. McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.

Bentham, J. (2008). A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government. Oxford University Press.

Emon, A. M. (2010). Islamic Natural Law Theories. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579006.001.0001

Griffel, F. (2009). Al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331622.001.0001

Heriyanti, K. (2020). Moderasi Beragama melalui Penerapan Teologi Kerukunan. Maha Widya Duta: Jurnal Penerangan Agama, Pariwisata Budaya Dan Ilmu Komunikasi, 4(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55115/duta.v4i1.783

Karacuka, M., & Zaman, A. (2012). The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature. International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 3(4), 366. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPEE.2012.052695

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, West Strand. Bölüm.

Quinn, M. (2016). Jeremy Bentham, “The Psychology of Economic Man”, and Behavioural Economics. OEconomia, 6-1, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.4000/oeconomia.2249

Shidiq, S. (2011). Usul Fiqh. Kencana.

Taylor, C. (1982). The diversity of goods. In Utilitarianism and Beyond (pp. 129–144). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611964.008