Moral validity
Hello Rabbi Michael, I would like to raise a certain thesis regarding the issue of the validity of morality.
From what I have seen, you claim that when a person who claims to be obligated to behave morally – in fact implicitly shows that there is some transcendent necessity, he has given validity to morality (correct me on my wording if I am wrong)
I want to make this assumption difficult – why not assume that this sense that we are obligated to behave morally – also came about through evolution – and not just the moral behavior itself or the feeling of conscience if we don’t behave that way. But also the feeling of obligation to the matter.
I would appreciate your feedback on this matter, thank you.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No problem, I don't want us to link this to religion in the first place unless it's an unavoidable solution, and then I'm of course forced to agree with you – but that's exactly the crux of the matter - that's what I'm trying to explore
I'm trying to understand whether it's related to religion or not without talking about religion beforehand, and as part of this process I'm trying to wonder where the feeling of moral obligation comes from.
You claim that the only solution to feeling moral obligation is the necessity of a higher being.
Now, even if you've discussed the issue of religion before, and even if you haven't - I can understand that it's very likely that the explanation for our thought that we are obligated to behave morally came through evolutionary development.
The explanation for this feeling through it is very plausible to me.
Why do you think my solution is skeptical?
I think it's the more plausible of the two.
Still, I want to challenge myself and try to understand why I might be wrong. I would be happy if you could show me why your solution is the more reasonable of the two.
These are not two solutions. According to your suggestion, there is no valid morality. It is a feeling that was built into us during evolution. Feelings that are built are not something binding or valid. Therefore, you must decide whether or not you think there is a valid morality. If there is – then you believe in God implicitly. If you think this is an evolutionary product, then there is no valid morality.
None of this has anything to do with the question of whether or not I thought about God and/or religion before.
So, it could very well be that everyone who thinks that there is a valid morality that obliges them to behave morally – this is nothing more than an evolutionary result. And not that there really is a valid morality.
A question for you, do you assume that there is a valid morality?
If so, a reasonable option is that this is nothing more than an evolutionary feeling that makes you think so,
and that there really is no valid morality,
but that this is a way of human thinking, or an illusion, you could also call it that.
Indeed, there is such a possibility. Evolution can also be the result of various illusions. And so can physics and mathematics. I do not engage in skeptical questions because there is no end to the matter.
Yes, but there are levels of skepticism, this skepticism that I offer based on my understanding and familiarity with evolution,
it may be perfectly reasonable and it is not overly skeptical at all, if I may put it that way.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
