Q&A: Relative Morality
Relative Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask: how does the Rabbi think that morality is objective if we see that throughout history moral values changed between different groups? For example, cannibalism and burning people alive were normal practices in one group, while in other groups that would be considered outright murder.
And also over the years moral values have changed. For example, slavery used to be normal, as did attitudes toward animal suffering, eating animals, attitudes toward women, and so on.
From all these things it seems clear (apparently?) that morality is not objective.
It doesn’t seem that the Rabbi holds that way. Why not?
Answer
Hello Idan.
First, it is important to distinguish between what is and what ought to be. The fact that there is disagreement about something does not mean there is no truth about it. Take, for example, the debate over whether or not God exists. Does that mean there is no truth on the matter? Of course there is truth; there is simply disagreement over what it is. Either God exists or He does not. There are also disagreements in science, and there too there is obviously truth, even if it is not yet agreed upon or not yet known.
Precisely the change across generations indicates that there is truth. The world progresses, and its values get closer and closer to the truth. For example, when European culture encounters African culture, you do not see Europeans adopting the practice of eating human flesh or burning a person alive, but you do see Africans or Indians giving those things up. In other words, these changes have a trend and a direction. They are not random things that simply change for no reason. In my opinion, the more reasonable interpretation is that there is a true morality, and we discover it and draw closer to it over generations and years. Exactly like our approach toward scientific truth, which also changed over the years. Therefore, in my view, changes in moral values actually indicate that there is truth.
Generally speaking, when there is a dispute about some moral value, that means both sides agree that there is a binding morality; they just disagree about its content. If there were no such thing as morality, then what room would there be for dispute? If I subjectively favor value X and my colleague subjectively favors value Y, that does not create a dispute. If I like cake X and my colleague likes cake Y, we have no disagreement at all. When people conduct an argument, that means each side thinks its value is the true and binding one, and they argue about it. But on one thing they both agree: that moral values are universal and binding on everyone (not necessarily actually adopted by everyone. That is the distinction between what is and what ought to be). Only on that basis can the argument begin over what those universal values are.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Rabbi,
I join Idan’s comments, and I’ll summarize 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 underdeveloped cultures by saying that “left-wing ideas got into people’s heads.”
I think the reason comes from the inferiority that primitive cultures feel toward the Western world. The West succeeded in many areas (science, weaponry and war, medicine, technology). Once the primitive tribe is exposed to the West, it wants to “advance” and assimilate, and therefore abandons all of its cultural characteristics.
2. I’m attaching a link to an article written by your student Moshe Ratt called “No, We Are Not Animals – On Sexuality and Morality”: http://mysterium.co.il/ArticleView/tabid/268/ArticleId/439/.aspx
And here is the concluding line:
“Anyone who accepts intuitions as a legitimate basis for a moral system has no reason to deny his inner recognition that sexual morality is a category unto itself, and that not everything that does not harm another is permitted or proper. And if that is indeed so, the necessary conclusion is that secularization leads to extremely grave moral-sexual deterioration, and it is proper to give this serious thought.”
Do you agree with his claim that today’s permissiveness is “immoral”?
3. If you too see today’s permissiveness as a blow to morality, then we see that there is a trend of deterioration in moral perception, not progress as emerged from your words.
Idan,
We have a factual disagreement (whether in such an encounter the change is one-way or not). In my opinion, you are burying your head in the sand and entrenching yourself in ignoring the facts. I also do not see why your suggestion is in any way preferable to mine. On the contrary, each of our intuitions points in my direction (since each person relates to someone who does not act according to his way as an immoral person, and also bothers to argue with him). In addition, I already explained that in science too there is progress, and for some reason we do not see that factual truth immediately with 20/20 vision. But I won’t repeat everything I said. It was all already answered in the previous message.
Aharon,
1. There are plenty of excuses. I look at the surface facts. The fact is that Western values are adopted in other cultures. If you look for excuses, you will always find them, but you can’t build objections out of excuses.
2. I am not at all sure that sexual morality is a category unto itself. In my opinion, the use of the term “sexual morality” is just equivocation, and I think it serves as an expression of cultural norms and not of moral rules. I do not think permissiveness is immoral; rather, it is socially and personally unhealthy. Certainly violating the marriage contract is morally forbidden, because it breaches a contract. But that is social morality, not sexual morality.
3. I am exempt from addressing that because of what I wrote in point 2. I will only say that even if there is deterioration in one area, that does not mean there is no progress in others. The world is not black and white. But, as stated, that is only a principled and general point that is not needed in the present discussion.
Thank you very much; indeed I am inclined to accept these points.
I wanted to ask another question:
How does the Rabbi explain that morality really is objective? After all, after evolution we clearly understand why morality exists—through moral norms, members of a group were able to survive much better, so over the years the tendency to do good developed within us, and with time that tendency became so strong in us that we came to think it was an objective truth.
Hello Idan.
First, I rely on the moral intuition that exists in each of us, according to which there is a binding and valid morality. That is my starting point. Now I encounter a different explanatory proposal, an evolutionary one. Why should I adopt דווקא that one? I prefer to remain with the option that fits all of our intuition, and not just adopt some other proposal from which it follows that there is no binding morality, because tendencies are not something binding. I also have a tendency to gossip. So what? And if someone has no moral sense, then he is not obligated to behave morally? I would have no criticism of him?
It is important to understand that evolution does not offer an explanation for morality but for beneficial behavior. That is not the same thing. If the explanation is evolutionary, it is not clear why we have pangs of conscience and why we judge. Evolution is supposed to produce behavior, not feelings. It makes no difference whether we help another because we hate him or because we love him. The main thing is that we help, because only that has evolutionary value. For example, evolution developed altruistic behavior in animals, and yet I do not regard that as moral behavior. The fact that a sheep does not harm its companions is not moral behavior; that is simply its nature. A human being chooses and weighs moral considerations in his mind. Evolution did not develop that (since it would have been enough just to make us like sheep. They too do not harm others on the behavioral level).
Beyond that, as our Sages said: even if you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean they aren’t after you. The fact that morality has evolutionary value does not mean that evolution is responsible for it. Intellect too has evolutionary value, and still I do not accept that evolution developed the intellect (again, evolution is supposed to produce behavior, not thought or feelings). If evolution had developed the intellect, that would mean that intellect does not show us truth but rather what is useful and aids survival. That is not what we usually assume.
Well, at the next stage he’ll really say that there is no such thing as truth (like morality), and then indeed evolution, on his view, developed the intellect… (except that then that very claim itself will be meaningless, because if there is no such thing as truth, then it too points to no reality at all…)
It seems to us that slavery is immoral. It seems that the Torah pretty much agrees, but does not prohibit it. Why?
Why should it prohibit it? Jewish law does not come to achieve moral values. I have discussed this in many places.
Thank you very much for the reply,
but I don’t recall saying that I raised the idea of a “dispute” between the groups. On the contrary, I showed that the groups determine for themselves (apparently in a passive way) their own moral norms.
And therefore I actually think that when that “enlightened” tribe reaches the African tribe and tells it that killing a person is immoral, not only will the primitive tribe not accept what they say, it will even laugh at them and probably eat them…
The Rabbi is making a claim that sounds strange (maybe only at first glance?)—
that morality is something human beings draw closer to and discover over generations and years. Of course, if there is objective morality, we would not expect that one needs to put on glasses to see it; rather, everyone should see it 20/20. To me it feels a bit like apologetics that can withstand any challenge. I assume that with the development of the spiritual world [a period parallel to the scientific world], all kinds of left-wing ideas entered people’s heads.
But I really don’t have an explanation for the point you raised—why failing cultures adopt the moral values of the “enlightened” world.
Thanks for the answer!