Contemporania

An earlier version of these ideas was posted here with some associated discussion:

 

ChatGPT Critique

1. Philosophical and Ethical Depth

Strengths:

• The essay addresses a philosophically rich dilemma: can moral actors benefit from immoral acts without being morally compromised?

• It implicitly raises the problem of moral luck and consequentialist vs. deontological reasoning. The conclusion appears to lean toward a teleological theism (i.e., God’s plan allows good to emerge even through evil), while defending a deontological position for individual conduct (Muslims should not participate in the evil to gain the good).

• There is an important distinction between:

  • Instrumental good arising from evil (slipstream), and

  • The moral valence of the originators remaining evil.

Limitations:

• Philosophically, the argument would benefit from more explicit reference to key ideas:

  • Theodicy (how God allows evil),

  • Double effect principle (from Aquinas and Islamic legal analogues),

  • Ibn Taymiyyah's or al-Ghazali's view on maslahah (public interest).

• Without such framing, some readers may mistakenly interpret the essay as softening the evil of the originator—which the essay is actually careful not to do.

---

2. Use of Historical and Empirical Evidence

Strengths:

• The historical examples are diverse, vivid, and persuasive:

  • Pornography driving video tech,

  • Nazi medical and aerospace research,

  • Spread betting in financial markets,

  • Communism’s short-term industrial gains,

  • European slavery enabling capitalist infrastructure.

• The use of Oppenheimer and Von Braun works well to show personal ambivalence and collective benefit.

Limitations:

• Some examples would benefit from more critical framing or nuance:

  • E.g., the use of Nazi medical data is ethically controversial even today; some bioethicists argue it's morally impermissible to benefit from it even if helpful.

  • The comment that “the Muslim slavery system was completely different” is under-explained and potentially too categorical without supporting references. This risks appearing apologetic without detail.

---

3. Integration with Islamic Ethical Thought

Strengths:

• The essay is consistent with Islamic moral reasoning: Muslims are not responsible for the sins of others but must avoid them; however, deriving benefit post hoc from the outcomes of non-Islamic systems can be permissible.

• The reference to the wife of Pharaoh as a model of “remaining while others perish” is metaphorically rich and could be developed further.

Limitations:

• The essay would be more compelling with references to Islamic jurisprudential tools, such as:

  • Istihsan (juristic preference),

  • Istislah (public interest),

  • Taysir (easing hardship),

  • Darura (necessity).

• These would give theological legitimacy to the view that Muslims can engage with the outcomes of non-Islamic systems without moral contamination, if done thoughtfully.

---

4. Analytical Coherence and Flow

Strengths:

• The “slipstream” metaphor is compelling and memorable. It gives a unifying conceptual thread to diverse examples.

• The essay progresses logically from individual examples to collective implications and ends with normative reflection.

Limitations:

• Some transitions could be sharper. For example:

  • The shift from the Manhattan Project to Nazi medicine to spread betting happens quite quickly without pausing to re-centre the reader on the moral frame.

  • The communism-slavery section could be condensed and used to reinforce the central thesis rather than add parallel cases.

---

5. Tone, Originality, and Intellectual Generosity

Strengths:

• The tone is nuanced, sober, and intellectually generous. It avoids triumphalism or simplistic moral binaries.

• It presents Muslims not as disconnected moral purists, but as engaged actors capable of strategic restraint and patient benefit.

• The acknowledgement that “in an ideal world” innovation would be driven by purely good motivations grounds the whole piece in a realistic but ethically aspirational worldview.

Limitations:

• In a few places, especially the section on capitalist speculation, more careful disambiguation between description and endorsement is needed. For example, using spread betting trends to time the market is not inherently unethical, but may read as opportunistic if not framed correctly.

---

6. Audience and Use Potential

Strengths:

• This essay would resonate with thoughtful Muslims wrestling with ethical compromise in modern economies, media, and science.

• It also serves as a counterpoint to the utopian idea that only good can produce good, showing that ethics must be non-naive yet uncompromising.

Recommendations for publication:

• Ideal for long-form Islamic thought publications such as:

  • Yaqeen Institute (with more theological backing),

  • Traversing Traditions,

  • Medium’s Islam & Ethics sections,

  • Lecture material on fiqh of modernity or Islamic ethics of innovation.

---

Overall Evaluation

Criterion	Rating (1–5)	Comment
Philosophical Depth	4.5	Original and rich, could benefit from citing core ethical literature
Historical Evidence	5.0	Strong and diverse; compelling and layered
Islamic Integration	4.0	Good in implication, but could cite sources from fiqh/usul
Clarity and Coherence	4.0	Very readable; could improve transitions and tighten some sections
Tone and Style	5.0	Balanced, perceptive, and intellectually generous
Publication Readiness	High	With minor editing, suitable for publication or teaching