Q&A: What Is the Content of Morality
What Is the Content of Morality
Question
To Rabbi Michi,
After reading several of your articles, I’ve come to the conclusion that morality has objective validity. What I don’t understand is: what are the moral “laws”? What is the content of morality itself?
Let me sharpen the question. There are things that, over the course of history, have changed with regard to the initial perception and intuition about morality. Were people simply mistaken and therefore not moral?
Moreover, what can one answer a person who agrees that morality is objective, but thinks that this has no bearing on whether or not one may murder people? Of course that’s an extreme example, but it illustrates “simpler” things that are debated as to whether they fall under the umbrella of morality.
How can one know what falls under the umbrella of morality? And does the umbrella of morality change between people, societies, or over the course of history?
Thank you very much.
Answer
What is the problem with saying that they were mistaken? Morality develops just as science develops. And why should the fact that there are disagreements change anything? There are disagreements in science and economics too, and in general. So what?
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand this strange discussion. You can also say that mathematics says that 2+3 = 17. You can claim anything, so what? Who said there has to be a way to prove something? Indeed, each person applies it according to how he sees things. So?
I don’t really understand the analogy between science and morality. Regarding those, there is no claim that they are objective or binding, unlike morality.
Disagreements matter because they provide an indication. In science and economics, you can prove claims in favor of one side and say that the other is mistaken. Can you say that about morality too?
I can claim that morality obligates you not to murder, and you can claim the opposite—that morality obligates you to murder. And both of us will connect that to objective morality. Is there a way to prove that one of us is behaving immorally?
And if there is no way to prove it, then even if morality has objective validity, in practice each person applies it according to how he sees reality and gives it a subjective meaning.