Is Halacha moral?
Your Honor
As far as I understand, you are claiming that halakha is not necessarily a moral mechanism, but rather a logical mechanism that depends on the moral assumptions that are put into it.
This ruling by the Rambam is a bit annoying to me.
Sanhedrin Chapter 9
A. The Sanhedrin, which all began with the laws of souls, said, “Everyone is obligated, so he is exempt.” Until there are a few who claim to be righteous and the number of those who are obligated increases, and then he will be killed.
I did not define it that way, nor do I understand this definition. Halacha comes to achieve some goals (which are usually incomprehensible to me), which are not moral goals.
I also don’t understand the question about Maimonides.
As I understand it, in one of your lectures you explained the canonization of the Gemara as a framework of discourse within which and according to its assumptions it will be possible to issue laws, and later you explained that the explanations in the Gemara or the ways of drawing conclusions in it are such that one can act with all kinds of moral assumptions, and so let's say, at a time when slavery was 'legitimate' the Gemara provides the way to issue laws concerning slavery, but this does not justify or make any moral statement about slavery,
and in fact, law and morality are two separate things and a conflict between them should be resolved like a conflict between two moral principles.
And for the question, the Rambam quoted above states that in the case of a court of law that unanimously decides that a murderer is guilty, the murderer will be acquitted, which seems like a moral statement that if the entire court thinks in a certain way, something is wrong with them, and the law requires them to change their thinking if they want to hold the murderer liable.
A moral statement because it defines good and evil and not just "if then"
And the question is how do you say that Halacha is the mechanics of "if then"?
If God really wanted us to keep the commandments, He would have adapted them for humans!
I am not familiar with the position you describe. I explained my position above regarding halacha versus morality.
But in any case, I fail to understand what the problem is with the halacha that Maimonides cites. The argument there is that if every court rules in the same way, there is probably a bias there and therefore the case should not be decided that way. It is a distorted judgment. The Torah says, “You shall judge your neighbor with justice.” Even if that were a moral principle, I do not understand what the problem is with that. But beyond that, there is not necessarily a moral principle here. It simply means that we are not doing what the Torah calls a just judgment. It is like not accepting a single witness, because it is not strong enough evidence.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
