conflict

asked 4 years ago

When the values that are in conflict are incommensurable, is it true that not only can the values not be measured against each other, but that they simply have no measurement, meaning that it is not a technical problem but a fundamental one?
And according to this, a verse cannot teach me the answer because there simply is no answer (and as you wrote in the course of events). But on the issue of Pikuach Nefesh in Yom Shmuel does bring a verse from Chai Bimhon to decide between keeping Shabbat and Pikuach Nefesh, and didn’t we say that there is no answer to this even from God Himself?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago

This verse is proof that there is no true incommensurability between values, as I have said more than once. After all, each of us makes decisions in value conflicts all the time, and this also proves that there is no incommensurability. I explained that there are general basket concepts that apply to all value systems. In the religious-halakhic context, it is about the extent to which it is God’s will. In the moral context – how polar it is. And in the context of a moral-halakhic conflict, how appropriate a move is. I also explained that the good and the proper are not values that the system came to serve, because values do not serve anything outside of themselves. This is a standard that values reflect and express.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

EA replied 4 years ago

You wrote that my commitment to a moral value is based on the value principle of the commitment to morality. But on what is my commitment to this value principle based? And if "like this" then I could also say "like this" about the commitment to a moral value; and furthermore, if it is because of "like this" then my commitment to the value principle of the commitment to morality is arbitrary?

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

At the beginning of every chain of reasoning is an axiom. There is no point in asking why the axiom is true, because if you have an explanation then it is not an axiom. And if you keep looking for explanations all the time you get caught up in an infinite regress.
This means that an axiom is accepted without explanation, “like this”. This does not mean that it is an arbitrary claim. It is a claim that is self-evident and therefore does not require explanation. What is not self-evident requires explanation and cannot be said about it “like this”.

EA replied 4 years ago

I understand that. What I didn't understand is what you're saying "like this" about, about a value or about a value principle?

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

First and foremost, the value principle. But after I am committed to the principle of moral value, I must also determine what moral values are. Once X is determined to be a moral value, I am committed to it by virtue of the value principle.
One can of course ask why X is a value (although you cannot ask why one should be committed to it, even if it is a value. This is a consequence of the value principle). Then the answer there too will be “so”. I see that it is a value, and that is it.