The validity of moral values ​​for a rational and non-believing person

Ron continued and asked:

Honored Rabbi, Dr. Michael David, thank you for the detailed answer.

You said that a fact does not determine a norm. I want to give an example that a fact can determine binding values.

It is a fact that parents are usually devoted to their offspring to the point of sacrificing their own survival. This is also a fact that stems directly from evolutionary motives.

But from this fact a social and moral norm is derived that concerns the parent's duties towards his offspring.

Similarly, my devotion to my children, their survival, happiness and success, determines my commitment to society and its moral values. This is how I raised my children, in the belief that it would improve their chances of success and survival and reproduction.

And the justification for adhering to moral values is only my personal commitment to my children and their path to society.

And as for a person who has not conceived children, who has no personal survival interest, he can still be committed to society and moral values, similar to the "altruistic gene" observed in bees and ants. That childless person takes an action that, at best, contributes nothing to his personal survival but helps his siblings or nephews.

As for a person who acts immorally, according to the above examples, (in my opinion) he acts against himself. An individual cannot physically exist without society. And what I would say to such a person depends on what result I thought I could achieve.

Aren't these valid examples of binding norms derived from evolutionary facts?

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is indeed a Jewish value that, in my opinion, there is no reason to adopt as a binding value without belief in God. (Like removing scaffolding from a building that can stand without it).

I accept the centrality of religion in the historical development of human morality and society, but in my opinion, human morality can exist and be justified even without belief in God. Our dependence on society (created by religion) is the survival justification.

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge and the low level of my arguments.

Thanks in advance,

Note that you are wrong again on that very point. The fact that parents give their souls to their children is a fact, and can be explained evolutionary. It also exists in the animal kingdom. The question is not whether they give their souls but why? Or is it binding and valid? If someone does otherwise, will you come to him with complaints? Is a goat that does not give its soul for its children morally defective? Will you come to her with complaints?
I refer you again to the above columns because this is well detailed there.

Your Honor, Doctor David, once again, Chen Chen,

I watched the discussion "If there is no God, everything is permitted?", I think I understand what you are saying

Thank you and have a good week