New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

The paradox of weakness of will

שו”תCategory: philosophyThe paradox of weakness of will
asked 2 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
I remember you mentioning in one of the last lessons that when a person sins, he usually chooses interests over moral considerations. I wanted to ask whether this mechanism somehow resolves the paradox of weakness of will, or whether it also stems from weakness of will. In other words, the reason a person chooses interests over moral considerations stems from the fact that he is too weak to adhere to his moral values? Or is it that from his perspective, morality simply doesn’t interest him, and is there perhaps a sin here in opinions?


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 2 years ago
This is precisely the problem of weakness of will. The argument of those who see this as a paradox is that the weighing of interests and passions with values ​​is the ultimate will of man, and if he has committed a transgression, his will to passion is probably greater than his will to goodness/mitzvah. Therefore, repentance requires him to change his positions in themselves, and not just strengthen his will. I proposed my solution in column 173.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אורן replied 2 years ago

Is there a problem with basing the entire model of free choice on choosing positions rather than strengthening one's will? That is, if we assume there was no such thing as weakness of will, would that change anything in our perception of the process of answering or the demand for an answer?

מיכי Staff replied 2 years ago

Yes. If the whole problem was in the positions themselves, then a person cannot be required to make a proactive response. If it happens that his positions have changed - fine. But if his positions are X, how can you require him to change them to Y. After all, he holds positions X.

אורן replied 2 years ago

From what I understand, there are people who hold positions that they are aware are wrong, and yet choose to continue to hold them. For example, a person who holds the position that he prefers to enjoy easy money while stealing and deceiving other people. He is aware that this position is immoral, and he still holds it. Why can't such a person be required to change his position proactively? This reminds me a bit of the discussion about preparing him until he says I want to, when the beatings are intended to change the position of the person who refuses a divorce.

מיכי Staff replied 2 years ago

I discussed this in detail in column 172. A position for our purposes is the totality of considerations, values, and interests alike.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button