Q&A: The Source of Obligation to Values
The Source of Obligation to Values
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi!
There is a question that has been bothering me lately. I’m not sure I’ll manage to convey it clearly, but I’ll try.
I definitely believe that there is an absolute system of morality and values, but I don’t understand what obligates me to it. What I always thought was that the most basic obligation a person has is life itself, and that is the source of obligation; therefore, one must necessarily choose the right way to live, as the verse says: “See, I have set before you today…” — “choose life.”
What I don’t understand is how it can be that there are transgressions for which the law is that one must be killed rather than transgress, and how it can be that I can be obligated in something that is more than life itself.
Answer
I don’t understand how life, which is a fact, can be a basis for any obligation. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Life is a condition for obligation (someone who is not alive is obligated in nothing; “the dead are free”), but not the basis of obligation.
I have written several times that someone who understands that there is a binding system of values should not ask himself why it is binding. That is inherent in the very definition of values and morality. If you do not understand that it is binding, then you do not really believe that there is a value system (whether absolute or not).
In light of all this, I do not understand what the principled problem is with the rule of “be killed rather than transgress” (aside from the fact that it is hard to live by).