The Motivator for Moral and Religious Life

A. If I understand correctly, you claim that I simply assume what is requested, and in your opinion, an act can be for a purpose external to us. And this is exactly what I feel, and I see people doing it. And that's it.
As if there is no way to add to the discussion, either you hold that an altruistic act is possible or not. (Every discussion assumes assumptions behind it, but here the assumptions are directly the conclusion).
B. If that's how I asked you, if you met two delusional people on the street who gave you a book with five commandments that you had to perform every morning, such as tying the skins of dead carcasses to your body, jumping 8 times on your right foot and 6 times on your left foot, giving a third of all your money to an unknown person, etc.
Apparently, you would not see an obligation to carry out their words, why? After all, in your opinion, the reason for listening to morality is that it cannot be reduced to a previous one. But if so, who hates the religion of the Huzim?
This screams that this is an arbitrary “such and such.”

PS I found that one of the reasons that Rabbi Moshe Rat writes on the subject is that God has planted within us the desire to fulfill His commandments, and if so, this is an internal desire and not too difficult.
Moreover, I thought it would be easy to claim that from here itself we have evidence of God’s creation, because if you ask a man on the street: “If you had a revelation from God and He told you to put on tefillin, would you do it?”
He would probably answer and say, “Of course.” But since it seems that the Rabbi’s words here indicate that there is no difference between the case under discussion and the request of the Huzim (where he would of course deny their request), it is proven from this that he has an internal desire to carry out the will of God. And if so, according to anthropological evidence, the most reasonable interpretation is to claim that God implanted this will in him in the first place.

A. Indeed, that is my claim.
B. If I understand that there is an obligation to keep their commandments, I will keep them. Usually I will not feel that way. This is exactly the difference between arbitrary and axiomatic (which is self-evident and therefore does not require justification). If a person meets you and tells you that in a straight Euclidean space two cannibals meet. Would you accept his words? You have no evidence that he is wrong (otherwise it would not be an axiom). You would not accept it because it is not true. Why? Like that (not arbitrary but axiomatic, meaning self-evident and does not require explanation).
If someone says that it is a matter of responding to desire, then this is not a justification but a psychological explanation. Therefore, I will pose the question, and he did not answer right away. I have a tendency to speak slanderously. Is this a justification for doing this? It is only a psychological explanation for why I actually do it. And it does not matter at all if my conclusion is that God did indeed implant this in me. This is still not a justification. The question is why do it.

A. Thank you
B.1. How will you understand that there is an obligation to fulfill the commandments of the group of hypocrites, after all, the norms are not measured in relation to works? Rather, it turns out that it is measured in relation to your internal subjective state (such as the list of desires that are preferred by you - which include the desire to eat chocolate and peanuts and go on a diet).
2. It is clear that the division between the axiomatic “this” and the arbitrary “this” is quite arbitrary to an *outsider* person.
3. On the contrary, if someone says that it is a response to desire, the argument is very understandable. Because, in fact, a psychological explanation of action following internal desires is completely rational, because we know very well that from its point of view, the fulfillment of desires as motivation is a very good explanation for the actions we do. For example, the desire to eat sweets explains why we buy them at the supermarket.
In fact, you are right later on that it is indeed a psychological explanation, but it is worth noting that it is not appropriate to seek justification for desires, because justification by its very nature is in relation to a state of affairs “external” to us, but anything that is external to us has no reason to create within us a desire to act towards it. Therefore, all desires originate from a psychological motive.

So what, a person who does not have this axiomatic understanding that if God says one must do [why, who is He? In honor of what?] does he really have no reason to obey? And does God punish them for not listening to this insight?

Kobi,
1. Not a subjective situation but my understanding (which is a recognition of reality). I don't understand what's unclear here.
2. I'm not an outsider.
3. A psychological explanation is completely rational, it's just self-interested. Not value-based and not related to commitment and norm.
I don't understand what's unclear here. This sounds like just a repetitive discussion to me.

Eliezer,
God does not punish those who forsake. And He probably knows who was forsaking and who ignored the girls he had.

1. I didn't understand the point, after all, consciousness is measured in relation to the state of the norms outside, but if the norms outside can't say anything, then there is no reference plane to measure and everything is psychological.
2. In fact, then you claim that you have an intuition that it is true, and morality motivates you to act (or vice versa) that does not require a prior reason. Because it is an evidential regression.
3. I assume this is related to the continuation of the discussion, for example 1., Do values external to us such as altruism really have the possibility of existing for us.
Okay, thanks,

Indeed, it is knowledge of the norms that produces values. The norms outside can certainly tell us something, and these are the value insights we have. When I see this collection of delusions, it is clear to me (and to you) that there is no substance in them, and therefore I will not obey them.

Okay, thanks, it feels to me that anything I ask will just repeat the discussion that was there and I'm already guessing the answers in advance that you'll claim…

But I'll ask something from another side of what I'm trying to express.
The concept of external commands to us, for example, within a valid idea that has the ability to produce norms and not just facts. Doesn't that sound strange to you?

Not only is it not strange to me, but it is a fact of life as simple as having a chair in my hand. In my opinion, every intelligent person understands it this way (although he may not realize it for himself). This is the only basis that can give validity to moral principles, and therefore anyone who sees moral principles as valid principles is actually relying on such a picture. You might want to read articles (by David Enoch and others) on moral realism. By the way, one of his articles is called "Why I (and You) Are an Ethical Objectivist." He, like me, assumes (and shows) that we are all like that, even those who don't admit it.

Obviously, everyone understands the idea that killing just like that is bad, etc., etc. But the clear difference is that he doesn't understand how strange, abstract, and some of the underlying assumptions that his belief entails are, and some are even delusional. Once he sees how strange the assumptions are, it may be reasonable for him to give up his beliefs in order to have a more reasonable and rational worldview.

P.S. Do you have an article in Hebrew to refer to..?

He can of course give up the recognition of morality and then he is of course exempt from this assumption.
Only the fourth author, Ch.

Are you sure there is no other good material in Hebrew on these topics?
It makes sense that we should hire translators to start translating philosophical books, then…