Why work the
When you are asked this question, you answer, “That’s it, this is the most basic value, this is a value and therefore it is a goal and it does not serve another value and therefore it does not need any basis, etc.”
But why don’t you simply answer “because I believe in God”??
In general, when you talk about this question/issue “Why obey this value?” with Leibowitz and all, you say that it is impossible to answer “I obey this because I have to do…” (for example, why keep a mitzvah? Because by them we will worship God. Why not walk on the road at a red light? Because we have to protect life as much as possible. And so on and so forth) because if so, then this value that I obey is again not a value but a means to reach the value that I said when I answered. You assume that all the answers we get to the question “Why obey value X” will be structured in this way “because I have to obey value Y.” Then your claim (that the more basic value is Y) is correct.
But why don’t you imagine answers that aren’t structured this way? For example: “Why should I obey value X,” “Because I believe in it,” “Because it’s good for me that way,” “Because I think it’s good,” etc., etc.
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.
But you yourself say that "I believe in him" without "I am committed to him" has no meaning. Believing in God means accepting his authority.
So, what is your question? Now you say that I myself base this on faith, but at the beginning of the thread you asked why I don't base this on faith. Do you understand your move? I don't.
My argument is that the concept of ‘God’ includes within it the obligation to obey Him (God is a being whose commandments must be obeyed). When you ask why, the answer will be like this.
1) I believe in God
Therefore I am obligated to Him
Where is the naturalistic fallacy here? Apparently not, after all, the concept of God includes the obligation to Him, doesn't it?
2) Every time we ask ourselves "Why do I obey X" will the answer necessarily be something like "Because I am obligated to Y"?
3) The "so" you answer means "I have an intuition that it is a correct and most fundamental value that cannot be substantiated by any other value," right?
EA, you didn't answer my question about the contradiction in your questions. I'll address the new formulation you put forward here:
1. A naturalistic fallacy is deriving a value from a fact. If you believe in God, it means that God exists. That's a fact. How can a value or a moral obligation be derived from this? Only if you add that the definition of God in his very concept is that there is an obligation to obey his commands does the argument become valid, and then of course there is an implicit moral assumption here (that the existence of God includes an obligation to obey him). Now the argument is valid, and I completely agree with it. But this is exactly the ”like this” I'm talking about, so what's your question?
2. At the end of the road: yes.
3. Indeed. See end 1 of this message.
There is no contradiction, it was simply a move:
Q: Why doesn't the rabbi answer the question "Why do you obey God" with the answer "Because I believe in Him"?
A: Because from the fact (I believe) we don't derive a value (I am obligated)
Q: But from the fact "I believe" I can actually deduce that "I am obligated" because the very meaning of faith implies that I am obligated. Believing in an authoritative entity without being obligated is simply an oxymoron.
A: You explained to me that this very explanation of the meaning of faith (that faith is a concept that also includes obligation) is a hidden bridge assumption that allows me to derive my obligation from my faith.
Ultimately, why do you worship the name of God? Because you believe in Him as an authoritative entity that can command you to do something. Why do you believe in Him? Because you have come to the conclusion based on evidence and intuition that He exists. And all this = like this (but of course you answer like this without going through all this because we are talking here with those who already believe, and only ask themselves okay I believe but why obey him)
Did I understand correctly?
precise
Times for joy!
There was a debate at the table during the holidays between family members, if God told you to do this and that but you would receive neither reward (if you obey) nor punishment (if you disobey), would you obey Him?
One of the pieces of evidence presented was, if the Knesset told you "You will pay taxes 30% on your salary, but don't worry if you don't pay we will not punish you", would you pay?
Why not? Regardless of the reward and punishment, it's the right thing to do. As for the tax, if I think it's the right thing (and others pay too), I would pay it too.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
