Let’s assume we threw someone on an empty planet and gave him enough food. Someone might wonder whether it is possible to call this person virtuous or not during his stay. Some argued that asking whether this person is virtuous or not would have no meaning, as he had never interacted with any one the whole time. They say that morality has no meaning outside society.

However, won’t that person be grateful to whoever gave him food? Isn’t this gratitude a feeling? Isn’t this feeling a virtue? We could have thrown him in that empty planet without giving him anything to eat. Doesn’t his creator have the right to be thanked and worshiped? Isn’t that a virtue with the creator? You might be alone with the environment, and you can pollute it or treat it morally. Also with animals, you can treat them morally and you can be cruel with them, killing their children and ruining their nests. All these virtues and vices take place without the society, isn’t treating animals kindly a moral act? Don’t human communities have SPCA (societies for the prevention of cruelty for animals)? How, then, can one claim that morality is only inside societies and when a man goes out it stops? As if it’s a vacuum cleaner only working inside cities!

Even the person within himself he practices morality and immorality. Didn’t we hear of people feeling embarrassed from themselves? They don’t have societies inside them to be moral with! We can agree then that morality is a Good feeling, and good is not only needed by people, rather all living beings, the environment, the individual himself... etc. So why do we confine good to the frame of society? Man alone does things that makes him hate himself, and thinks about things that makes him hate himself, this occurs with nobody around!

Morality is a world by itself, not just inside society. Morality is a continuous line. It is the intention for good, after knowing good, or the intention to know "good" through the truth.

Going back to the person alone on a planet, doesn’t he think? If he thinks through good ideas then he is practicing morality on the planet. If he intends and plans for selfishness, evil and revenge and makes evil plans, he is, then, practicing immorality on this planet {man is well aware of himself} (Qur’an). Planning is an essential part of any work, like the blueprint of the building. Doesn’t morality start with an intention? Doesn’t our friend on the planet have intentions? Then he is practicing morality or immorality alone. This proves false the idea of the amoral planet inhibitor.

Morality is with the creator and with the created, not only with society. Every action starts with an intention, and our friend might be thinking about taking revenge against who put him on this planet instead of thanking them for what they gave him. Choosing good morals or bad ones is a matter of absolutely free will. Can we say that he did not do any bad thing on the planet? Where is his gratitude for the amenities he has? During his life on the planet, doesn’t he feel desperate or optimistic? Feel lazy or energetic? Self-content or discontented? Entertain good ideas or bad ones? Seeking truth or seeking animalistic pleasures -without even wanting to know the truth-? Desiring to ruin the environment or to fix it? All those are morals with one’s self, for we have morals with ourselves as we have truths about ourselves.

Every truth produces two positions: moral or immoral. For example, your position towards your duty of protecting your body from diseases or neglecting it can be regarded as a moral or immoral position, like when you stop caring about your teeth you are practicing immorality with yourself; because there is a truth that yielded a moral obligation and you ignored it. Where is society here? The same thing happens with our friend on the planet; for he must have teeth. What proves that there is morality with one’s self is that you hate yourself when you neglect your duties towards yourself the same way when you neglect your duties towards other people. Here we understand why Islam forbids suicide, because it is immoral with the self and to whom it is in relations with.  
Also, we understand that everything in life puts a duality in front of us, and that leads us to the major test that God puts to us every moment, whether we believed in Him or not. Here are His tests in front of us in the form of dualities that only stop when life stops. Those dualities leads to His existence, else why are they there if life is absurd? This also leads to the existence of freewill. A rock on the street yields a duality: moral and immoral, you either move it away from people’s way or leave it without even warning others from it, a thirsty tree yields a duality, every truth you know yields a duality: believing it or not, and so on. 

The prophet Moses attitude with Alkhidr that is mentioned in the Quran reveals to us that morality is based on: knowledge + good will, i.e.: the positive side of the dualities, The Quran says: (Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it) aka the best side of the dualities. Moses behavior was not moral in the three incidents he went through with Alkhidr even though Moses had the good intention, while Alkhidr’s behavior was moral because he had the good intention + knowledge. That is why we say that Moses was moral but his attitudes towards the three problems were immoral due to his ignorance of the truths that Alkhidr knew. No one shall be morally blamed without knowing the duality. 

Saying that morality is confined in society is considered an accusation of moral hypocrisy, in which man practices morality with others and gets rid of it when s/he is alone. We should not forget that morality is an idea and an intention before it is a behavior, and we are not convinced with everything we do for society, else –based on what is said above and the logic of who say that morality is only with society- we can infer that we practice morality even though we are not convinced with it for the sake of others, therefore whoever practices morality for society is immoral!

When thinking about morality, some people think of the moral behavior alone, forgetting –or wanting to forget- that every action is preceded by an intention. The suspect is pronounced guilty when his criminal action is premeditated, i.e. convicted with his intention, but people do not condemn others when they do something unintentionally. A man can have this intention whether alone or with others.

Also, if morality is a result of society as some claim, why is it that all the members of any society criticize the ethics of their society even though they created them? Moreover, why did the society formed itself and made villages and cities? Is it for the sake of morality? Or for the sake of selfish luxury, comfort and self-interest and not for society?   Every individual in the society is discontented with the ethics of society, and agitated by its crowdedness, competition and even its existence, that is because it is a society of interests. Who created, then, the social morals so they can put their whole blame on him/her? Societies create interest and get together around it, they do not create morality and do not group together for it, except a few individuals that men of interests disobey, and they are in constant struggle with those quality individuals.  

Taking public interest into account is not considered a moral act; it was done for the sake of the inflated and growing private interest. The awareness of any society of public interest reveals a strong consciousness of private interest and fear for it more than other societies. It is not a sign of moral elevation. The proof of this is that the public interest of any society often feeds upon the loss of other societies without caring about them, as in colonization, globalization, and interfering with internal affairs of other societies. Those are immoral acts approved by society for the sake of public interest, which shows us that the public interest is nothing but an inflated private interest.  

If the awareness of public interest was motivated by an elevated moral motive, the free peoples in the west would never approve of acts such as giving other peoples’ lands away to others, allow dislodging people from their homes, economic and political control, interfering with peoples destinies and global capitalism…etc, and the list of immoral acts –and they know they are- goes on. But those acts serve the public and private interest, which means they are still in the context of interests not morality. No one will ever reach morality by inflating self interest {God has not made for any man two hearts in his body} (Quran), a heart on morality and another on interests! And what will he do if they clashed?  

Some people claim that the concept of morality evolved to include the interest of the environment in the frame of morality. However, morality with the environment has always been there, and it –treating the environment morally- was imposed by the morality of every individual who knows morality to whatever he knows about the environment. It is not a new concept as they imagine. Religions have pointed out to morality with the environment, especially Islam that forbids cutting a tree or burning a land even by military motives, for example Islam had forbidden squandering in everything even water and hunting without a necessity. 

Some people have claimed that for an act to be moral it has to be associated with interests, whether the interest of the individual, society or the environment, and that morality is taking into account the interests of others. However, what is the self-interested person’s motive behind considering others’ interests? If the act was motivated by interests it is not moral, it is just a growth of interests. The intention does not combine two opposing things, you can’t intend a thing together with its opposite, like joining the intention of morality with the intention of interests. No one can intend two things at the same time. Besides, how would a capitalist businessman succeed if he takes others’ interests into consideration? Is it by leaving them alive after cleaning their pockets?

Any gain you take from others is against their interests, no matter how you earn it. Luring people to buy through advertisement, promoting products to kids and women, monopoly, usury, capitalism ...etc, all of those are immoral acts because they touch people’s interests, even though they are the pillar of the materialist society. According to the idea that immorality is measured by the harm of interests, capitalism is immoral because it collects people’s interests and gives them to one person.

The capitalist wants to collect people’s interests and money from their pockets to build his fortune, and does not care how poor they will be; for he doesn’t have a limit to how much he can gain from people, which means he wants to take all what they’ve got if possible! From the view point of interests, is this a moral or immoral act? It deserves praise if it is moral.

If we go along with the claim that morality is merely interests, interests should, then, be noble, making the most adhering person to his own interests the most beautiful and most beloved person due to his morals, because he loves money to death and ingests interests leaving none at all, what a great man who embarrasses people when they see his lofty morals employed for his interests! This is the image of the moral man as depicted by materialism. In the race of interests there ought to be a damaged person, and this damage is not moral, therefore interests are against morality.

The capitalist wishes and tries to take what people have, but not through robbery because it may harm him. If a merchant deceived you in a deal using your ignorance, he is just like who robbed you, and the law doesn’t protect the ignorant. He made the deal knowing that he’ll harm you, so is that a moral act? We can conclude that interests oppose morality by necessity, and interests don’t protect interests, (one Man's loss is another man's gain). The more you continue to fellow interests the more you oppose morality. If you ask the merchant for advice he will advise you to sign the deal even though he knows it will damage you, and he’ll highlight its advantages and hide its flaws, thus preserving his interests. Aren’t interests basically dependent on others? 

To achieve success many people have to fail, therefore interests are based on harming others, i.e. interest is based on immorality, in different forms and varying degrees. The more others fail the more you succeed. The successful businessman is the one who makes many people fail in keeping their money while their money pours into his pocket, -coming out of their pockets of course not from the land-. How could, then, a thing produce its opposite? How could interests produce morality since interests need to have a damaged side to be called interests? There is no deal that makes everyone a winner in the same degree. Therefore, the interest-based society is a group of people who got together to eat each other.
The factory does not calculate the cost of production and sells its products with the same cost. The race of interests is limitless, if a factory could sell a product with a hundredfold its cost price it wouldn’t mind that even if it damaged the consumer, and it would consider this a success at the expense of other factories and consumers. Thus we can see that interests are not moral, “eagles do not breed doves”.

In the true moral situation, a man sacrifices a material interest for moral gain- which is consistent with mans duality: the soul and the body- so everybody is the beneficiary without losing love. When you stop to help someone on the side of the road, you lose your time, effort and get your clothes dirty, and yet when you’re done you feel happy even though you did not gain anything, you have even lost. This content and happiness means that you have morally gained. This content is not achieved when you gain what you have materially lost in the previous example, which proves that the moral is more important than the material, and also proves that morality is not based on interests. In the heat of interests love is lost, because everyone is thinking about winning and losing, thus there won’t be love in the society. What made communism arise except the fever of capitalist interests?           

Interests belong to the material life of man, and morality belongs to his/her moral life. Interests and morality are from two different worlds, as different as the soul from the body.

Some have argued that giving charity to the poor enhances the interest of the society, thus assuming that charity is done for the sake of interests. But the donor to the poor has his own interests damaged, for he is part of society! So how would he support the public interest at the expense of his private interest he worked hard for? He should have left people with their money instead of taking it away from them and then donate some back! If the this donor cared so much about the public interest, he shouldn’t have gained his money at their expense in the first place, unless he is afraid of envy!

Some claim that killing is usually considered a crime, and the killer deserves punishment, and s/he is rejected by society, in the normal cases. But the same society glorifies its soldiers when they kill enemies at war, and killing becomes an act of heroism. From this example of the shift of evaluation to the same act (killing) they say that morality is relative. However, do all the societies and countries of the world agree with the society that glorifies the act of killing done by its soldiers? Of course not. Also, the term ”society” or “community” should be expanded in order to get a clear picture, If the other neutral societies approved of this act it would, no doubt, be a heroic act.
Both morality and reason clearly stand out when interest disappear. When interest shows up it disrupts the standards of morality and reason, an Arabic proverb says: “prejudice is the bane of judgment”. This shows the deep hostility between interest on one hand, and morality and reason on the other. It also shows the strong connection between morality and reason. Combining the three is impossible.     

Whoever helps the needy for the sake of his own interest -like trying to be famous- is not moral. He is still in the realm of interest and selfishness. If the poor knew that this person helped him for his private interests the poor would detest him. Try this: help someone and tell him/her that you did that for your own private and public material interest and not because I felt sympathetic or driven by love for you, how would he/she answer you? This reveals the great falsity in the materialist philosophy. Reality is sufficient to expose its falsehood, since logic is not sufficient it’s the materialists. Man is the weakest point in the materialist philosophy, for it has a one-sided material view of man. That is its main defect, as abdul-wahhab almesiery have said.
Whoever says that morality is motivated by interests, I want him/her to explain immorality to me on the basis of interests. Everyone says to who practices immorality that s/he did this immoral act for her/his private interest, which -i.e. interest- is at the same time the same motive for moral behavior! How can two opposites have one motive?!

If avoiding damage of interests is the principle of morality, this would mean that patience, tolerance and helping others are immoral acts because they damage personal interests! This is one of the endless contradictions the false materialistic thought, and what is built on a fallacy all its results will be false.

The question is: since morality is for the sake of interests as claimed, why has morality been distinguished from interest by its honor and elevation? The millionaire has no value as long as he collects money, but people remember him when he donates something, or in a situation in which he acted humbly, without even donating anything, and his family remains proud of that moral act- which opposes interest- even after a hundred years from his death. We know people from our fathers and grandfathers who have long been deceased and no one remember them except for their moral stances even if they were small. This means that our history is written when we oppose our interests, not when we fellow our interests. 
Venturing to save children out of danger, into which basin interest has poured here: the basin of the individual or the basin of society? This rescue operation served whom? If one says that it served the interest of society, then why did people remember the rescuer not the rescued? If one says that this rescue served the interest of the rescuer, what is his interest? He almost died! and probably had been physically injured after the rescue. What interests could you have out of saving children you do not know from danger, except the injuries and damages you had to suffer?
Some people say: when you stand in a queue for some purpose and someone crosses the line and forcibly takes your turn regardless of who is behind him or the system of the queue, what would be your attitude? Simply the attitude will be –in spite of whether you are a theist or an atheist- that this person acted immorally, because he did not care for your and other peoples interests. This is what they say. 

However, violating the line system here is akin to attending a business meeting in a sportswear, the same thing will be said about you. Is wearing a sportswear an immoral act? Those are- formal wear, queue,…etc- social customs and whoever breaks the social custom is criticized. Social conventions can be built on a moral basis like the queue system because it is built upon a right, but it is not always this way as in the formal dress of peoples all around the world, they are not based on moral grounds, and yet whoever plays football in the formal uniform will be harshly criticized and laughed at, belittling his morality and mentality, even though he did not harm anyone nor damage their interests! 

Materialists say that the act ranges from moral to immoral according to the damage and benefit to interests, no matter how large or small these interests are. Well, if the other person sees what you do as causing harm not benefit, would your behavior towards him be considered moral or immoral? Like the father who forces his son to study in a particular field that the son dislikes, does the son sees his father as acting immorally with him? Or does he excuse his father for his good intention and his lack of knowledge of his sons wishes and talents? Subsequently, harm and benefit are not the basis of morality.

 What is the basis of morality then? It is the will to do good, and “good” is the “truth”. If you wanted the truth and did what is true then what you have done is good, even if the other person sees it as evil. Morality is nothing but a type of truth. The moral person, then, is the one who wants to follow the true and real path. Who told us the truth -even if it is against our wishes- had acted morally with us, s/he intended the truth so he became moral without realizing that he was. Who treats us kindly and tells us something that suits our prejudices and yet violates the truth then he is immoral.

Morality is part of the truth, what is moral is also real. Morality is associated with truths not interests. Generally speaking, we benefit from truths not from forgery, we can see the interest in some truths, and some we do not see it clearly, but it is there, and whoever loves the truths will find them. That is why God said He sent the Quran with the truth, and God called himself “The Truth” not the moral. Mercy, generosity, sacrifice and justice all work to build a truly cohesive and unified society. If we take away morality from the society the situation would no doubt be bad, i.e. wrong. Therefore, the first situation is the true one, the second is the false, because the second is built on selfishness and interests, thus interests contradict morality and do not produce it. 

Some say that the need for continuous improvement of systems and laws arose to go along with the gradually increasing awareness of interests and their connections with the interests of others, on the individual, societal and environmental level. And provide examples such as: people were not aware of the dangers of factory smokes and the pollution that was caused by the industrial revolution, which caused very harmful effects on human health and the environment in the long run, and they were only seeing the positive side of the industrial production, which led later to pass laws forbidding the establishment of factories without specific environmental standards.  

This agrees with what I said earlier that morality is built on truths, when the truth of pollution became clear, it was considered immoral to cause it. Therefore, morality is associated with knowledge of the truth. This is the secret behind the formal difference in morality (relativity) among individuals and societies alike -which many rely on in their shallow view of morality-, some people knew about a certain truth and some didn’t, and if they knew they would have the choice to commit or not to commit. So, morality is knowledge of the truth and adhering to it, or seeking knowledge for the sake of morality, this is the definition of morality. This takes place in everything that is related to human beings, it all needs true knowledge, in the case of existence and the creator, the case of others, the case of the environment, living beings, and the self also. Accordingly, an area with no knowledge = an area with no morality. The atheist denies Gods existence, i.e. no morality in this wide area that covers the rest of life, because he does not have an alternative true knowledge, and who does not know a thing about the environment will not be moral with the environment. Here we can see the strong connection morality and knowledge. Thus the person who wants righteousness will seek knowledge, because knowledge is the crossroads between morality and immorality, who does not want to be know he does not want to be moral, the atheist who says I do not know and don’t want know and search in the issue of Gods existence, can he be moral in this area? He is like who says I don’t want to know what true and what is false about the environment; can we call this person moral with the environment?   

It is said in the Quran: {Only God's knowledgeable servants fear Him {,} with truth We have sent it down (i.e. The Quran), and with truth it has descended {He did not say: with exalted morality, because the word “morality” is usually used in the context peoples interaction, and exalted morality and ignorance never go together. Also, we understand the connection between morality and true faith, and moralitys need for true faith, because sometimes the truth becomes painful, and morals are the daughters of truths, thus who can bear be moral can bear the truths, what compensates this pain? Here comes the logical necessity for the existence of a benevolent God.   

Man sacrifices his interests even if people did not appreciates him/her, because s/he knows that God does not waste the reward of those who did good deeds, and that Gods satisfaction and a just afterlife will make up for his patience with the injustice of this life, here a person can practice morality.

A selfish materialistic secular will not be able to practice morality when virtue opposes his interests, and can practice it when it does not oppose them. The opposition between ones morals and his interests is the touchstone that distinguishes a person who chose virtue from the one who chose interests. If morality agreed with ones interests the person here is not a moral person, rather a self-interested one. That is why we respect and revere scientists, this respect stems from our reverence for morality, the same when we revere a selfless person. Anyone who associated with the truth will be duly respected and revered. The respect for societys important people like leaders, businessmen and famous people is all based on anticipated morality, and if their immorality is discovered they will fall, and everybody knows that any moral act done by such people will result in love by millions of people, and a person loved by millions is not like a person loved one or two.   
Some people cite some examples like stealing intellectual property and hunting endangered species as new bad morals, assuming that morality evolves. However, this does not mean that morality evolved, it means knowledge evolved. Can we strip these things from knowledge and call them morals only? i.e.: let’s assume that science discovered that blue clothes badly affect people’s health, people’s position after being introduced to this fact will be either moral or immoral, a moral tailor won’t make you a blue shirt, while another in the black market won’t see a problem with making it. Does this mean morality has evolved or our knowledge has developed? The principle that tells us not to harm others is a moral one and has not been changed, what has improved is our knowledge about new things that are harmful to others, which adds to the list of things that harm others along with many things that are known long ago. This is not moral evolution; this is evolution of knowledge that specifies morality. With the passage of time people discover new things that they should take a moral position with, and this confirms what I said that where there is no knowledge there is no morality. Who does not have morality does not have knowledge. Morality is: knowledge + a position stripped off of interest as a respect for this knowledge, i.e. for the sake of knowledge and science even if it was against self-interest. That is why the moral person needs knowledge to distinguish good from evil in this area or that.

This is the real respect for science not what materialists claim, because they don’t have a real need for knowledge. Who is his main concern is selfish desires doesn’t need knowledge except what serves those desires, thus his knowledge will be incomplete and incoherent, while the moral believer is in need of all knowledge. That is why he has to turn to philosophy and science, because science is knowledge. The atheist claims that he respects science at the same time as he lives for self-interest, so what will he do if they clash?
Knowledge comes after choosing Good, not vice versa. You must choose Good in order to learn, because your morals will urge you to know the truth. A very educated person motivated by interests will not morally benefit from his knowledge, while an uneducated yet moral person will morally benefit from his knowledge even if it was little. 

Knowledge and science are not enough to make a moral man, as Socrates predicted that ignorance is the cause of evil. The fact is: ignorance is a result of not choosing Good and choosing interest instead. Choosing Good leads to the true knowledge. Choosing interest leads to ignorance.

The atheists position will be more beautiful if s/he said: I respect science even if it was against my interests. Thus the person mainly concerned with interests does not respect science, he respects interest and whatever serves his prejudice, whether it was ignorance, immorality, science, morality or anything that might serve his interest and feed it, thus becoming a person with no principle. That is why materialists are trying to convince us that morality is not consistent, because principles and values are consistent, and that is in order to make room for themselves to move and shift between opposites depending on the requirements of interests.