moral

Ziv asked again:
Sorry I didn't respond to the same question I already asked, it's not possible for me, but I would still like to respond. I'll give an example. A person who is faced with a dilemma, whether to kill for money or not to kill. On the one hand, he wants money. On the other hand, there is human life that has a more important value. He is aware of the value and understands that objectively he is "better" than the value of his money and not because of a divine command (and let's assume for the sake of the matter that he has no interest). Is it possible that he will not kill for the important value of human life (because it is better)? It sounds very logical to me, yes. Thank you very much.

I answered that. Without God it has no validity. In fact it has no validity for everyone because there is no such thing as validity.

Forgive me, it's a little hard for me to understand the Rabbi. Sometimes I'm not as smart as the Rabbi (seriously). I asked, is it logical or not for a person who does something for the sake of this value out of an understanding of the importance of the value and not because of a command? Another question is what does it mean that God "gives validity"? Just because He commanded and said that this thing is permitted or prohibited, does that give validity?

Forgive me, I don't know if the question was sent, so I'm writing again and adding. Forgive me, it's a bit hard for me to understand the Rabbi sometimes, I'm not as smart as the Rabbi (seriously). , 1. It's important for me to clarify myself. I'll try to be clearer. My doubt is this: A person who doesn't believe in God but believes in objective good and evil, for example, a person's joy is good or a person's sadness is bad. I'm not satisfied with whether he has an obligation to act in a good or bad way, probably not. The doubt is whether it is possible (logical) to choose good just because it produces better without any interest, against his own interests, or is there no logic in such an act? In other words, is there a reality of choice in such a case or is the person deterministically forced to go with his interests and only in the event that there is a commandment does he have a choice? I hope I explained myself properly.

When a person knows that helping others is good, but there is no God who gives it validity, then of course he can help others and there is no problem with that. But there is also no problem not to help. Therefore, searching for reasoning or justification in such a situation is a mistake. Everyone does what is in their head. That's all.
The question of whether a person chooses or is forced is not related to the discussion of goodness in the absence of God in any way that I can see.
This is not a question of wisdom. It is clear that you have not defined the question for yourself and have not read my answers carefully.

Just to make sure I understood, what I meant is, are there any “altruistic” actions even without binding morality? That is, I do good not out of inner feelings of compassion or anything like that, but to make my friend happy even though I have no obligation or binding morality?
Another question, is it possible that God does not act according to moral values? Thank you very much for your patience

Not out of emotion. So why are you making your friend happy?
Maybe if he has another worthy goal that rejects Manser's values

If there is objective good and evil, then because it is good to make him happy, even if I have no interest (such as an emotion or conscience that torments me)
And if there is no good and evil, then let's take for example a case where there is my interest here compared to someone else's greater interest, the logic in this is that I choose to maintain the thing that has more meaning and value (not moral value but utility) because it benefits me more, meaning I act above its utility.

I asked why you choose to make him happy? You didn't answer, so I'll answer myself: Because it itself makes you happy (after all, there is no obligation). In the absence of obligations and authority, everything a person does is because that's what he feels like doing.

Why didn't I answer? Simply to benefit him, to uphold a (non-moral) value greater than my own. You assume that if there is no obligation then there is no such thing as altruism, why can a person act for a moral value and not for the happiness of his friend? (Once again, I emphasize that he has no obligation and this act is not necessarily more worthy.) Thank you very much.

When there is no duty, there is no value. A moral action is an action in response to a duty. I tend to think that if there is no duty, the action is also not altruistic, but that is a side issue.

1. I do not mean moral value nor value of the act itself, it is possible that the action has no moral value. I mean that my friend's happiness has value and importance, for him at least, it is impossible to argue about that, and I act for his happiness, just as I can act for my own happiness or for moral values.
2. Is there a good reason or a real necessity to think that if there is no obligation, the act is not altruistic? In my opinion, no
Many thanks

By the way, it is important to note that this is not a side issue, which is what I was aiming for from the beginning of the conversation.
Thank you very much

I'm exhausted.