Commitment to Halacha – Son of a Grimm

At the end of the book, you discuss the issue of commitment to halakha. You conduct the discussion with Hillel, a Jew who grew up in a Jewish society.

My question is whether those considerations apply to every person in the world, or do they have a sociological context. If you meet a Chinese person who has never heard of Judaism, and he asks you what the possible source of his commitment to observe the commandments of the sons of Noah is, do you think the considerations are the same?

That is, a religious obligation based on faith in the historical core of the revelation at Mount Sinai? Even though the first time he hears about this story is from you, and he has no familiar personal/family/community tradition?

And if this man converts, what about his son?

Now I understand. The Chinese can rely on Jewish tradition. What he hears from me should not lead him to an immediate decision. If he is not convinced, he can check Jewish tradition himself.
Of course, all this is based on Maimonides, who says that there is no religious value in observing the commandments of the sons of Noah unless it is done out of a commitment to the commandment at Sinai. The very observance, if we ignore the religious motivation, does not require tradition or revelation. These are moral commandments and faith in God. This can also be achieved directly.
I did not understand the question about his son. How is it different from him?

Because his son is obligated not only to a few basic and fairly intuitive commandments, but to the entire Jewish tradition.

It is true that the son accepts that there was a standing at Mount Sinai, and the descendants of the Israelites who stood there should indeed be obligated to the thirteen commandments, and all the rest should indeed be obligated to the commandments of the children of Noah. He still asks himself – and you – why does he belong to the first category? His ancestors did not stand at Sinai. God did not command his ancestors to keep all of His commandments and pass them on to their descendants. He has difficulty understanding why he should keep all of the commandments just because of a whim of his father and mother who happened to be converted to Judaism.

He himself should check the same tests that his parents did. Just like every Jew should do it. Should a Jewish son be obligated to what his parents committed to? Why? If he checks and comes to the conclusion that it is not true, he will not keep it. And so will the Chinese man's son.

Now the punchline: If he discovers that he is committed to what his parents committed to, it may follow that the basis of the commitment to the mitzvot is a commitment to the parents.

Perhaps the conclusion is that you are also committed to the mitzvot mainly because you are committed to your parents.

It may be the other way around, you are committed to the mitzvot, the halacha tells you that if your father converted then you are also Jewish, and therefore because of a general commitment to the mitzvot you are forced to respect your father's will here. This is an option.

But if after a thorough investigation the son of the immigrant discovers that the reason is because he is committed to his father, this conclusion is certainly warranted

Exactly your ”could be”. I don't see a punchline here. You don't owe your parents anything. If you checked and they were wrong, don't do anything. If they were right, then you do it because it's right and not because your parents said so.