The Neutralist Fallacy
Have a good week!
First of all, thank you very much for the response and for the articles in general.
According to the fallacy, it follows that we cannot derive values and norms from facts or, as the Rabbi defined, ‘judgment from facts’, for example: it is not obligatory to be moral even if we have defined what morality is. And my question is, then from what can we derive obligations, and even if G-d commanded us. It is still a fact and what will make us uphold it as a norm?
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.
If the Rabbi says that another bridge needs to be added, then we will do it even without God. And the words are different: If Yom's argument is that there is no possibility at all of imposing a proper command on man, then even God cannot do it, and if it is possible, yes, it is possible to impose a norm on man, then we will do it even without God?
On the educational side, there are instructions that must be followed. But this is not the truth.
God reveals the possibilities and man chooses.
But in any case, Rabbi Michi has a problem here, because he claims that nothing can be learned from the Torah that God gave.
And from this it follows that when the Rabbi speaks of the obligation to follow the word of God, it is an obligation devoid of content. After all, nothing practical can be learned from the words of God.
You can do whatever you want. The question is whether it is actually true in your opinion. Without God, I see no reasonable bridge principle that would establish morality.
Your argument is similar to the claim that if every argument is based on premises (which is of course true) then every premise is equally acceptable as its opposite.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
