Is morality the same as revelation?
To the Rabbi, peace be upon you.
I would like to address the fifth notebook, and more specifically the likelihood that God did indeed reveal himself in the past.
Let’s say that God were to reveal himself to us today and say that the entirety of our obligation is morality alone (that is, that although morality may seem instrumental, it is nevertheless the purpose of creation for whatever reason).
Should we then continue to take the revelation at Mount Sinai seriously? After all, the contents of these two revelations are different from each other, and sometimes (although rarely) even contradict each other. Furthermore, the revelation we experience ourselves is not similar to the revelation that has been transmitted in tradition for thousands of years.
It seems to me that then we would trust the revelation “in the future” and abandon the first one, which we did not experience.
So, why don’t we consider our intuition about the correctness of moral values to be the same revelation that we expect from God, according to your suggestion? I believe (and this is also what you say) that most of us accept quite naturally both the reality of God and the correctness of the moral values that God has “injected” into us. It is understandable, then, that we should not conquer or push aside this feeling, but rather act on it.
On the other hand, we (or at least most of us) do not feel this way about the status of Mount Sinai. To believe in it, we must employ more complex and less reliable tools based solely on probability.
Then I will ask: After all, God is also accustomed to revealing His will to us every day through the moral values He imposes on us. If He wants to teach us other messages, why wouldn’t He reveal them to us as He reveals moral values to us? Why should we be expected to search for them, if not across the sea, then across generations? And what is the meaning of God’s silence on religious messages (at least in our day) compared to the constant broadcasting of moral messages?
With great respect
Hello, Padhatsur.
First, there is a logical leap in what you are saying. The fact that we have a moral feeling within us does not mean that this feeling tells us that only morality is binding. The moral “revelation” only says that moral values are binding. We have no feeling about the rest, and therefore it remains open. I do not think it is correct to say that there is a positive feeling that the rest is not true and not binding. At most, we do not understand it.
Second, I think a hypothetical discussion of what we would do if there was a revelation is unnecessary and cannot be conducted. I will give you an example. Some commentators claim that Abraham failed in the attempt at binding, because he should have refused (morally and logically). Others claim that he could have claimed that it was an illusion or deception (Descartes’ deceptive demon), since this contradicts morality and the promises of God (for in Isaac your seed will be called).
Beyond the fact that this is an interpretation that does not fit what is implied by the verses, I think it makes a false assumption. As long as I have not experienced divine revelation, I have no way of understanding its meaning and whether it is binding or not. Can it be interpreted as an illusion or not? Think of a blind man arguing against a sighted man why he believes his eyes. After all, it is possible that all of this is an illusion. Especially if the sighted man is observing an improbable sight. The blind man will immediately suggest that he interpret it as some kind of visual illusion. But the sighted man will refuse to do so, because he has experienced the sight and it is clear to him that it correctly reflects reality. He cannot explain this to the blind man, and it is still clear to him that it is true. Thus, a person cannot judge someone who is in a situation that is completely unfamiliar to him and he has never experienced anything similar to it. In my article here, I expanded on this claim (and I also gave the example of akida):
Therefore, until you have experienced an epiphany, there is no point in discussing the question of what I would do if I had experienced it.
As for your question about why God did not instill in us the values of Halacha as He did for morality, I can give you an example. The legislator very much wants every person to help his friend who is in distress, but He does not command this (until a law is passed, “You shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor,” or the Good Samaritan. There are many countries where there is no such law). Why? Because there are things that the law is supposed to require, and there are things that remain to be performed voluntarily, not as obedience to a binding command. God also chose to insert certain values into the written law and command them, and other values He prefers to be done voluntarily, out of our conscience, and not as obedience to a command.
See, for example, my article here:
Leave a Reply
Hello, Padhatsur.
First, there is a logical leap in what you are saying. The fact that we have a moral feeling within us does not mean that this feeling tells us that only morality is binding. The moral “revelation” only says that moral values are binding. We have no feeling about the rest, and therefore it remains open. I do not think it is correct to say that there is a positive feeling that the rest is not true and not binding. At most, we do not understand it.
Second, I think a hypothetical discussion of what we would do if there was a revelation is unnecessary and cannot be conducted. I will give you an example. Some commentators claim that Abraham failed in the attempt at binding, because he should have refused (morally and logically). Others claim that he could have claimed that it was an illusion or deception (Descartes’ deceptive demon), since this contradicts morality and the promises of God (for in Isaac your seed will be called).
Beyond the fact that this is an interpretation that does not fit what is implied by the verses, I think it makes a false assumption. As long as I have not experienced divine revelation, I have no way of understanding its meaning and whether it is binding or not. Can it be interpreted as an illusion or not? Think of a blind man arguing against a sighted man why he believes his eyes. After all, it is possible that all of this is an illusion. Especially if the sighted man is observing an improbable sight. The blind man will immediately suggest that he interpret it as some kind of visual illusion. But the sighted man will refuse to do so, because he has experienced the sight and it is clear to him that it correctly reflects reality. He cannot explain this to the blind man, and it is still clear to him that it is true. Thus, a person cannot judge someone who is in a situation that is completely unfamiliar to him and he has never experienced anything similar to it. In my article here, I expanded on this claim (and I also gave the example of akida):
Therefore, until you have experienced an epiphany, there is no point in discussing the question of what I would do if I had experienced it.
As for your question about why God did not instill in us the values of Halacha as He did for morality, I can give you an example. The legislator very much wants every person to help his friend who is in distress, but He does not command this (until a law is passed, “You shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor,” or the Good Samaritan. There are many countries where there is no such law). Why? Because there are things that the law is supposed to require, and there are things that remain to be performed voluntarily, not as obedience to a binding command. God also chose to insert certain values into the written law and command them, and other values He prefers to be done voluntarily, out of our conscience, and not as obedience to a command.
See, for example, my article here:
Leave a Reply
Hello, Padhatsur.
First, there is a logical leap in what you are saying. The fact that we have a moral feeling within us does not mean that this feeling tells us that only morality is binding. The moral “revelation” only says that moral values are binding. We have no feeling about the rest, and therefore it remains open. I do not think it is correct to say that there is a positive feeling that the rest is not true and not binding. At most, we do not understand it.
Second, I think a hypothetical discussion of what we would do if there was a revelation is unnecessary and cannot be conducted. I will give you an example. Some commentators claim that Abraham failed in the attempt at binding, because he should have refused (morally and logically). Others claim that he could have claimed that it was an illusion or deception (Descartes’ deceptive demon), since this contradicts morality and the promises of God (for in Isaac your seed will be called).
Beyond the fact that this is an interpretation that does not fit what is implied by the verses, I think it makes a false assumption. As long as I have not experienced divine revelation, I have no way of understanding its meaning and whether it is binding or not. Can it be interpreted as an illusion or not? Think of a blind man arguing against a sighted man why he believes his eyes. After all, it is possible that all of this is an illusion. Especially if the sighted man is observing an improbable sight. The blind man will immediately suggest that he interprets it as some kind of visual illusion. But the sighted man will refuse to do so, because he has experienced the sight and it is clear to him that it correctly reflects reality. He cannot explain this to the blind man, and it is still clear to him that it is true. Thus, a person cannot judge someone who is in a situation that is completely unfamiliar to him and he has never experienced anything similar to it. In my article here, I expanded on this claim (and I also gave the example of akida):
Therefore, until you have experienced an epiphany, there is no point in discussing the question of what I would do if I had experienced it.
As for your question about why God did not instill in us the values of Halacha as He did for morality, I can give you an example. The legislator very much wants every person to help his friend who is in distress, but He does not command this (until a law is passed, “You shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor,” or the Good Samaritan. There are many countries where there is no such law). Why? Because there are things that the law is supposed to require, and there are things that remain to be performed voluntarily, not as obedience to a binding command. God also chose to insert certain values into the written law and command them, and other values He prefers to be done voluntarily, out of our conscience, and not as obedience to a command.
See, for example, my article here:
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
