Q&A: Leibowitz
Leibowitz
Question
I heard the Rabbi, in explaining Leibowitz’s moral rebukes, say that even though he held that morality is an atheistic category, we are still obligated to it. But I seem to remember seeing several times that Leibowitz said there is only one supreme value, and everything else is merely a need. As in his well-known statement that a true humanist is necessarily also: a cosmopolitan, an anarchist, a pacifist, and an atheist.
Answer
Indeed, that is difficult. It is possible that the rebukes stemmed from a religious commitment to the moral imperative, and not from a humanistic commitment. Or perhaps he saw himself as both a humanist and religious (two separate categories).
Discussion on Answer
Humanism is not defined by what you do but by why you do it.
The same actions can be done for a humanistic reason, and that is what is called moral motivation. That can be done only by atheists. But those same actions can be done because of “and you shall do what is right and good,” and that is a religious motivation (and not a humanistic one).
I didn’t understand. He said that morality is an atheistic category, so what religious commitment is there? In what sense is it atheistic?
And he couldn’t have seen himself as a humanist, because as I quoted he argued that a humanist is necessarily an atheist (“Conversations on Faith and Philosophy,” Aviezer Ravitzky in conversation with Leibowitz, The Open University broadcast series, 1992, chapter 4. Quoted on Wikipedia.)