Relative morality
Hello,
I wanted to ask His Honor, how does the Rabbi think that morality is objective if we see that throughout history moral values have changed between different groups, for example, cannibalism and the burning of the living, which in one group was a normal act, in other groups it was like murder in every sense of the word.
And over the years , moral values have changed. For example, once slaves were normal, cruelty to animals, eating animals, treatment of women, etc.
From all these things, it is clear (as if?) that morality is not objective.
The rabbi doesn’t seem to believe so, why?
Hello Idan.
First, it is important to distinguish between what is and what is appropriate. The fact that there is a debate about something does not mean that there is no truth about it. Take, for example, the debate about whether or not there is a God. Does that mean that there is no truth in this matter? Of course there is truth, but there is a debate about what it is. Either there is a God or there is not. There are also debates in the scientific field, and there of course there is truth, but it is not yet agreed upon or known.
The change over generations indicates that there is truth. The world is progressing and its values are getting closer and closer to the truth. For example, in the encounter between European and African culture, you won’t see Europeans adopting the practice of eating human flesh or burning people alive, but you will see Africans or Indians stopping it. In other words, these changes have a trend and direction. It’s not something random that just changes. In my opinion, the more likely interpretation of this is that there is true morality, and we discover it and get closer to it over the generations and the years. Just like the approach to scientific truth, which has also changed over the years. Therefore, in my opinion, the changes in moral values actually indicate that there is truth.
In general, when there is an argument about some moral value, it means that both sides agree that there is a binding morality but there is no agreement on its content. If there were no such thing as morality, then what is the point of the argument? The fact that I subjectively advocate for value X and my colleague subjectively advocates for value Y does not create an argument. If I like cake X and my colleague cake Y, we have no argument. When you have an argument, it means that each of the parties thinks that his value is the true and binding one, and they have an argument. But on one thing they both agree: that moral values are universal and binding for everyone (not actually adopted by everyone. This is the distinction between what is and what is appropriate). Only then can the argument begin about what those universal values are.
Thank you very much for the response,
But I don't remember in my words that I raised the idea of a “debate” between the groups. Rather, I showed the opposite, that the groups determine! For themselves (it turns out that in a passive way) their moral norms.
Therefore, I think that when that “enlightened” tribe reaches the African tribe and claims that killing a human is immoral, not only will the primitive tribe not accept their words, but will even laugh at them and probably eat them…
The rabbi makes a claim that sounds strange (perhaps only at first glance?) –
that the morality of a human is approached and discovered over the generations and years. Of course, if there is objective morality, we would not expect that one needs to wear glasses to see it, but that everyone sees it 6/6. To me it feels a bit like an apologetic that is immune to any challenge. I suppose that simply with the development of the spiritual world [a period parallel to the scientific world], all sorts of leftist thoughts entered people's heads.
But I really have no explanation for the point you raised - why failed cultures accept the values of "enlightened" morality.
Thanks for the answer!
Shalom Rabbi,
I agree with Idan's words, and I will summarize them in a few points.
1. Idan does not agree with the assertion that morality progresses over the years, and explains the adoption of Western morality by backward cultures because ‘people have leftist thoughts in their heads’.
I think the reason stems from the inferiority that primitive cultures feel towards the Western world. The West has succeeded in many areas (science, weapons and war, medicine, technology). As soon as the primitive tribe is exposed to the West, it wants to ‘progress’ and assimilate, and therefore it abandons all its cultural characteristics.
2. I am attaching a link to an article written by your student Moshe Rat entitled ”No, We Are Not Animals– On sexuality and morality: http://mysterium.co.il/ArticleView/tabid/268/ArticleId/439/.aspx
And here is the summary line:
”Anyone who accepts intuitions as a legitimate basis for a moral system has no reason to deny their inner recognition that sexual morality is a category in itself, and that not everything that does not harm others is permitted or appropriate. And if this is indeed the case, the obvious conclusion is that secularism leads to the most serious moral-sexual deterioration, and it is appropriate to pay attention to this”.
Do you agree with him in his claim that today's permissiveness is ”immoral”?
3. If you also see today's permissiveness as a violation of morality, then we see that there is a trend of deterioration in moral perception, and not progress as you have stated.
Idan,
We have a debate about facts (whether in such a meeting the change is one-way or not). In my opinion, you are burying your head in the sand and digging in by ignoring facts. I also don't see why your proposal is in any way better than mine. On the contrary, each of us has the intuition to do as I say (after all, he treats those who do not act according to his way as immoral people, and also bothers to argue with them). In addition, I have already explained that there is progress in science too and for some reason we do not see this factual truth immediately 6-6. But I will not repeat all of my words again. Everything has already been answered in the previous message.
Aaron,
1. There are many excuses. I look at the surface. The fact is that Western values are adopted in other cultures. If you look for excuses, you will always find them, but excuses do not create problems.
2. I am not at all sure that sexual morality is a category in itself. In my opinion, the use of the name “sexual morality” is a co-naming, and I think it is used as an expression of cultural norms and not moral rules. I do not think that promiscuity is immoral, but that it is not socially and personally healthy. Certainly, cheating in the marriage contract is morally prohibited, because it violates a contract. But this is social morality, not sexual.
3. I am exempt from commenting on this because of what I wrote in 2. I am just saying that even if there is deterioration in a certain area, it does not mean that there is no progress in others. The world is not black and white. But as mentioned, this is only a principled and general statement that is not necessary in this discussion.
Thank you very much, indeed I tend to accept the things,
I wanted to ask another question,
How does the Rabbi explain that morality is truly objective? After evolution, we clearly understand why morality exists - through moral norms, members of the group could survive significantly better, so over the years the tendency to do good developed in us and over time this tendency became so strong in us that we thought it was an objective truth.
Hello Idan.
First, I base myself on a moral intuition that each of us has, according to which there is a binding and valid morality. This is my starting point. Now I encounter a different, evolutionary explanation. Why should I adopt it? I prefer to stick with the option that suits all of us and not just adopt another suggestion that requires a conclusion that there is no binding morality, because tendencies are not something binding. I also have a tendency to speak slanderously. So what? And if someone has no moral sense, then he does not have to act morally? I would not criticize him?
It is important to understand that evolution does not offer an explanation for morality, but for benevolent behavior. This is not the same thing. If the explanation is evolutionary, it is not clear why we have qualms of conscience and why we judge. Evolution is supposed to produce behavior, not emotions. It does not matter if we were helping the other because we hate him or because we love him. The main thing is that we help, since only this has evolutionary value. For example, evolution has developed altruistic behavior in animals, and yet I do not regard it as moral behavior. The fact that a sheep does not harm its companions is not moral behavior, but rather its nature. Man chooses and weighs moral considerations in his mind. Evolution did not develop that (after all, it was enough for it to make us like sheep. They also do not harm others on a behavioral level).
Beyond that, as our sages said: even if you are paranoid, it does not mean that you are not being pursued. The fact that morality has evolutionary value does not mean that evolution is responsible for it. Intelligence also has evolutionary value, and I still do not accept that evolution developed intelligence (again, evolution is supposed to produce behavior, not thinking or emotions). If evolution had developed intelligence, this would mean that intelligence does not teach us the truth, but what is beneficial and conducive to survival. This is not what we usually assume.
Well, in the next stage he will really say that there is no such thing as truth (like morality) and then evolution, according to his method, really developed the mind... (except that then this claim itself will be meaningless because if there is no such thing as truth then it also does not point to any reality...)
It seems to us that slavery is immoral. The Torah seems to agree, but does not prohibit it. Why?
Why would you prohibit it? Halacha is not about achieving moral values. I have stated this in many places.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
