A) The critiques of Shaftsbury's moral sense approach:

1- Affection / feeling is varied and relative:

To build morals on feelings and make the moral commitment due to affection

and depending on internal individual source leads to relative individual moral

judgements, because affection is relative and feeling is varied, also the

individual is not the same every time. So it cannot be proper to build a general

moral law that all humans agree on.

2- The separation of moral and religion is wrong:

Religious men criticised Shaftsbury's call for the separation of moral and

religion, and his insistence to exclude the religious reward or punishment as a

moral act. They argued that making people love Heaven and fear Hell has much

moral effect than leaving them for their internal feelings and their own sense of

virtue apart from religion.

3- It is wrong to say that virtues do not require suffering / efforts:

Virtue is essentially a sort of self-denial. This self-denial comes after much

individual suffering to defeat selfishness and try to realise virtue. Only then can

man deserve to be described as a man of morals. But Shaftsbury decided in his

approach that man is good by nature. So, he acts morally spontaneously without

any suffering, then man doesn't do any favour by being a man of moral, while

the real morals are based on free human will that results from suffering.

B) The three powers of the soul in Miskawayh's view:

Miskawayh argued that each power of the three powers of soul has a special virtue

that is compatible with its nature and its function as follows:

- The power of lust: its virtue is chastity and results from generosity.

- The power of Anger: its virtue is courage, and results from patience.

- The Power of speech: its virtue wisdom and it results from knowledge.

C) Concepts of good and evil (Beauty and ugliness) in AL Ghazali's view:

Al Ghazali identifies 'Good' as what man can benefit in the hear after, and 'evil' is

what harms at the end. The act is considered 'good' or 'evil' according to its

benefit or its harm in the hereafter. So, the act that causes harms to its doer in the

hereafter and benefit him in this life isn't considered 'good'. So, AL Ghazali assures

that 'The origin of all evil is involvement in this life and overlooking the hereafter,

while the origin of all good is to act for the hereafter's sake, but without overlooking

this life.

For this life in the farm where man cultivates for the hereafter. So, man needs divine

revelation to differentiate between good and evil and also needs reason to guide him

when applying this.

D) Physical evidence is one of the proofs that proponents of freedom provide to

support the position:

It is known that there are some physical movements and acts that man cannot

interfere in or control, such as, the primary instinctive urges:

Hunger, thirst, excretion etc. When man finds himself obliged to follow these

instinctive behaviour involuntarily. That is beside the involuntary reflexive acts,

such as closing eyes in a strong light. Moreover, one feels that there is another set of

acts of the organs and physical movements that he can control. This appears in the

voluntary acts, which are far more than the involuntary acts such as the ability to