Universal morality – based on what?

Thanks for the answer.

Apparently, moral behavior is a very basic thing and understandable to everyone. For this reason, Gentiles are obligated to the Seven Commandments of Noah even without ever having heard of them and the Torah of Israel. Why would they be punished if they did not observe them? After all, they did not experience their own Mount Sinai? But it is clear that morality is ingrained in humans everywhere and at all times and there is no reason to command it. We expect everyone to observe it, and therefore anyone who violates it is obligated. If so, I do not understand why the Torah needs to tell us at all that the morality ingrained in us is God's will and that we must obey it even if it is not a command. What does the Torah innovate?

I really don't agree. On the contrary, the fact is that many who define themselves as atheists are committed to morality. That is, there may be a perception that morality is binding regardless of G-d, or alternatively, that if G-d has not commanded it, it is not binding at all. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that G-d expects us to act morally.
It is true that in my book I showed that the perception that morality is possible without faith is a philosophical error, but the fact is that many fail to do so. And others base morality on convention or considerations of utility, thereby emptying it of its content. “And you shall do what is right and good” teaches that both are wrong.

As I think the rabbi says in the Torah and Morals series, the commandment "And do what is right and good" tells me that I can trust morality, which fundamentally comes from emotion.
In fact, the Torah tells me to trust morality because it too needs confirmation and an intellectual anchor.

I understand. In fact, "and do what is right and good" is a kind of philosophical anchor for human morality. We obey morality because it is the divine will. So in fact, it is very important, because without this philosophical basis, morality really has no meaning. But here the question from the Gentiles returns: why would the Torah obligate distant peoples who have not heard of the Torah of Israel and have no philosophical basis for morality, for the lack of observance of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah (or matters of morality in general)? They never commanded this, and their basic morality has no philosophical basis.

By the way, where can one find the series on Torah and morality?

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7INkVVWkswM3ozOEU?usp=drive_web

That's how I understood his words, maybe he'll correct me.

He has a place in the menu with all the lessons.

Morality does not come from emotion but from reason. However, this rational conclusion is based on faith in the mitzvah, otherwise we would think that it is just a non-binding emotion inherent in us.

Someone who has truly come to the conclusion that morality does not bind him has no claim against him. He is a coercive. The claim is only for someone who understood that there is a binding morality and did not behave according to it.

Thank you very much P.

And if someone is philosophically wrong? For example, an atheist who believes in a moral obligation and does not understand that there is no philosophical basis for his words, will his very belief obligate him to murder, for example?

There is a philosophical basis for his words, but he himself does not understand them. If he is moral, then he is actually a secret believer. See the fourth notebook.

On the surface, he is actually a covert infidel. In practice, he believes in morality and observes it, but in his assumptions lies the assumption that morality has no meaning. If I'm not mistaken, this is similar to what you say about various types of repeaters who did observe the commandments, but their belief system was atheistic from the start. And you could even say that about remote peoples who can behave morally - they don't really know that God expects them to behave morally, and therefore they are actually covert infidels (in the moral context).

I didn't understand this logic. How is it a covert infidel? After all, they are open infidels, because that's what they explicitly say, that they don't believe in G-d. But their commitment to morality indicates an implicit belief that they are unaware of.

Let me explain what I mean. It seems impossible to say that someone is bound by morality as long as they do not know that it is a divine command. This means that a person who has not heard of the Torah does not have to be bound by a case of murder, since it did not command it. It is just like the law of a baby who swears. Although the seven commandments of the sons of Noah seem to be bound by morality even without a divine command, so it is not clear to me.

First, belief in God does not mean belief in the giving of the Torah. God (and not the giving of the Torah) is a philosophical condition for moral obligation.

But there are many who do not believe in Him (so they declare) and yet are obligated to morality. If they murder, there is a place to obligate them since they understand that morality does obligate. What I noted is that this also indicates an implicit belief on their part, but it is not necessarily important for their moral responsibility for their actions. Like someone who knows that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180, but does not know the axioms of geometry or the proof. Can he be required to know this trifle and act on it? In my opinion, yes.

The Seven Commandments of the Noahide Laws do not teach that one is obligated without a command. Absolutely not. On the contrary, the Noahide Laws commanded and therefore they are obligated. However, for them, the command is a condition for halakhic obligation, and we are dealing here with moral obligation.

Thank you very much for your response, you helped me a lot in sorting things out.

With your permission, another question on the subject: It seems from Avot (1:1) that all the moral matters that appear in the tractate originate in the tradition from Mount Sinai. "Moses received the Torah from Sinai… they said three things… etc.". What is your opinion on the matter?

I really don't think so. There is a description of the transmission of the Torah, but that doesn't mean that the things presented there were transmitted in the tradition from Sinai. On the contrary, until Shimon the righteous, no words of Torah were presented that were spoken by a human being. The description of the transmission is laconic and anonymous, as if the transmitters were hollow tubes.
See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%93%D7%90% D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7% 94%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%99/