Morality without command or revelation from the Creator
peace.
In your opinion, without the principled statement of “and do what is right and good” (and assuming that this statement deals with the moral commandment), would there be any reason to expect a person to behave according to morality?
And we would say: (a) If so. Yes, man has reason, and through it we expect him to behave morally. If so, why was this fundamental verse written (and does it not add a layer of ‘commandment’? There is no commandment here to break a commandment and to nullify an act, etc.)? It is unnecessary! Proof of this can be provided from God’s observation not to murder in the Bible, even though there was no commandment at that time. (b) If not. Yes, the rational system is not a tool for producing a moral act (but only a descriptive one). And in order to produce a motive for action, a direct command from the Creator is needed. If so, why did the Creator not command this explicitly (and not just ‘and you did’, which is not included in the list of commandments)? Beyond that, why did the Creator expect that they would not be murdered, and why did He not command, and did not even reveal it (‘and you did’)!
It is possible that this comes after the giving of the Torah to say that morality still remains in effect and has not been replaced by Halacha. This is in contrast to certain religious approaches that think that after the giving of the Torah morality is no longer relevant, at least for Jews. There are quite a few who also act this way.
A bit cramped, isn't it?
I thought, maybe the statement ‘and you did’ reveals that there is also a religious value to being moral.
This requires explanation, but maybe an example for you from the issue of ‘offense for its own sake’. That is, that part of the religious world is also a moral consideration (and not a total separation of a split personality, without ‘and you did’). That is, moral arguments also take part in the formation of the religious act, and therefore we find ‘offense for its own sake’.
And so on. And so on.
In itself, it does seem narrow. But the very fact that many believe this means that there is definitely room for a verse that comes to exclude it.
Beyond that, some have understood that this is a matter of doing something that goes beyond the letter of the law, which is a certain type of moral command. In cases where it is a matter of doing something that goes beyond the letter of the law, there is a stronger case that there is no such obligation, since this is what the letter of the law teaches. For example, the restoration of a loss after despair, damages caused by negligence, etc., there is definitely a case where if the law instructs the Hadith that I am exempt, it is telling me to ignore the moral command. It replaces it. Therefore, the verse is required to say that although there is a halakhic exemption, the moral command is still in effect and one must restore a loss even after despair and pay for damages caused by negligence, etc.
As for your suggestion, I think that in this sense there are no non-religious values, since all values are based on God Almighty. There are non-halakhic values, but "And you did what was right and good" is in any case a non-halakhic (but moral) value.
You need to think about your suggestion.
What I meant to say is that without 'and you did', I would be likely to think that the moment there is a contradiction between Halacha and morality, then Halacha will always prevail. 'And you did' – written in the Torah! – shows that the Torah also recognizes this. Therefore, there is a place to take the moral consideration into account when there is a contradiction. And sometimes morality will prevail – a transgression for its own sake
perhaps
Regarding the current discussion –
Why can't we say that just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not murder’ came to add a halakhic layer to the moral layer (as is known to be your view on this), so too it is certain that without the ’And do what is right and good’ man had to behave morally (as there was an expectation that humans would behave this way even before the Torah), but rather that the commandment came to add the hachlit layer. And that is, that the Creator expects man to behave morally and that this also has religious value (like the prohibition ‘Thou shalt not murder’) – What do you think?
Possible but unlikely. The verse “And you shall do what is right and good” is not halakhic and is not counted among the commandments. Therefore, it does not add a halakhic layer beyond morality. Furthermore, morality itself is the will of God, meaning it has religious value for its own sake even without verses.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
