Q&A: Validity of Morality
Validity of Morality
Question
On the one hand, you argue that without God there is no valid and binding morality; on the other hand, you argue that the Knesset and the Sages have formal authority and that one must listen to them, because otherwise there would be chaos, etc. So the obvious question is: why don’t you make the same argument about morality—that there is in fact formal authority for moral rules, since it is obvious to everyone that if we do not listen to them there will be a catastrophe here?
Answer
First, the authority of the Knesset is not because of the fear of catastrophe, but because we agreed to accept it upon ourselves. That agreement itself was apparently motivated by fear of catastrophe.
If you accept moral rules upon yourself only at the instrumental level, that is utilitarian morality. And regarding that too I have previously distinguished between two meanings: 1. Maximum utility is the criterion for the moral act, but I do it מתוך commitment to morality and not in order to achieve the result. 2. I do it in order to achieve the result. The first approach is not problematic, and I am prepared in principle to agree with it (although in practice I do not agree. See column 122). The second approach is not a moral approach at all. If a person prefers the non-moral result, he can act immorally, and you have no way to make any claim against him.