Q&A: The Validity of God’s Command
The Validity of God’s Command
Question
I’ll present everything here for convenience. I think this can also be understood just by reading the last question alone.
My original question:
In the fourth booklet, you bring a proof that there is a dependence between the claims “moral judgment has meaning” and “there is a God.”
It seems that only two possibilities were raised that would allow morality to exist: subjective morality and morality (let’s call it) “divine.” I think there is a third possibility that would also allow moral judgment to have meaning.
It could be that there is a fixed system of laws, perhaps we might even call it primordial, and morality is determined according to it, and based on it one can judge what the moral act is. I don’t think one must necessarily say that a god created this system of laws…
Or did you mean that it has no binding force upon us unless it was created by a god?
The answer:
Indeed. The fact that there are laws does not mean that I will obey them or that I am obligated to obey them. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Beyond that, even if such laws exist, there is still room to ask who or what created them. And even if they are primordial, I explained that there is the principle of sufficient reason.
Question:
I didn’t understand why, if the system of moral laws was created by God, it obligates us? (By the way, does the Rabbi hold that it was created by God?)
(Why can’t the existence of that theoretical system of laws be explained in the same way that the existence of its creator—God—can be explained?)
Answer:
A system of laws is not an entity but rules. Rules are binding by force of someone who established them. Without such a someone, the rules have no validity.
My basic claim is that in the absence of God, the laws of morality have no validity. I personally also think that if God did indeed create the system, then it has validity. Of course, there are those who argue about that. But anyone who argues about the basic claim is simply mistaken.
Question:
Why does God have more binding force than the rules themselves—the system of moral laws? In other words, what binding force does God have that the system of laws itself could not have?
Answer
Rules have no binding force unless they were established by an entity that has authority. The mere fact that there are rules does not obligate anyone. So what if they exist? That is the naturalistic fallacy. I can produce other systems of rules, strange and varied—would you necessarily obey all of them?
Discussion on Answer
I already answered. That’s your decision. But when there is no entity, then obviously there is nothing to obey.
The claim is that if there is valid morality, then necessarily at its foundation there is an entity that gives it validity. I did not say that if such an entity exists, then its commands necessarily have validity.
Maybe I was mistaken when I tried to ask about this move. I’ll try to touch on the main point:
Why should I, or you, want to listen to God’s command?
I do not know of an explanation for this in terms of some more readily understandable principle. It is supposed to be self-evident. If there exists an entity that created us and the world, and it demands things of us, that has validity. I do not see what could be more intelligible that would explain this. See my article on gratitude, and at the end of the fifth booklet.
And why should I obey them if some other entity established them?