Q&A: The Validity of Morality
The Validity of Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael, I would like to raise a certain thesis regarding the issue of the validity of morality.
From what I have seen, you argue that when a person claims that he is obligated to behave morally, he is actually implicitly showing that there is some kind of transcendent necessity that grants morality its validity (correct my wording if I am mistaken).
I would like to challenge that assumption: why not assume that this sense that we are obligated to behave morally also arose in an evolutionary way—not only moral behavior itself, or the feeling of conscience if we do not behave that way, but also the very feeling of obligation in the matter.
I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you.
Answer
How can one answer a question like: why not assume something? Assume it. The claim here is made as part of a “theological” logic. I am proving to you that you believe in God. It is certainly possible that you are mistaken. I do not answer skeptical questions, because there is no way to answer them. You could raise the same doubt about my answer as well.
Discussion on Answer
These are not two solutions. According to your proposal, there is no valid morality. It is a feeling that was built into us over the course of evolution. Feelings that are built in are not something binding or valid. Therefore you have to decide whether, in your view, there is or is not valid morality. If there is, then you implicitly believe in God. If in your view it is an evolutionary product, then there is no valid morality.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the question of whether I previously did or did not think about God and/or religion.
If so, it could very well be that anyone who thinks there is a valid morality that obligates him to behave morally—that this is nothing but an evolutionary result, and not because there really is valid morality.
A question for you: do you assume that there is valid morality?
If so, a plausible option is that this is nothing but an evolutionary feeling that causes you to think so,
and that valid morality does not really exist,
but rather this is the way human thinking works, or an illusion—you could call it that too.
Indeed, that is a possibility. Evolution too could be the result of various illusions. And so could physics and mathematics. I do not deal with skeptical speculations, because there is no end to them.
Yes, but there are degrees of skepticism. This skepticism that I am proposing, based on my understanding and familiarity with evolution,
could certainly be reasonable, and it is not excessively skeptical at all, if I may put it that way..
No problem—I don’t want from the outset to connect this to religion unless it is an unavoidable solution, in which case of course I would be forced to agree with you—but that is exactly the point at issue; that is what I am trying to investigate.
I am trying to understand whether this is connected to religion or not without talking about religion beforehand, and as part of that process I am trying to wonder where the feeling of moral obligation comes from.
You argue that the only solution to the feeling of moral obligation is the necessity of the existence of a supreme being.
Now, whether you did discuss the issue of religion beforehand or not, I can understand that it is very likely that the explanation for our thought that we are obligated to behave morally came through evolutionary development.
That explanation for this feeling, by that route, seems very plausible to me.
Why do you think my solution is skeptical?
I think it is the more plausible of the two.
Still, I want to challenge myself and try to understand why I may be wrong. I would be glad if you showed me why your solution is the more plausible of the two.