Q&A: The Idea of the Good and the Laws of Morality
The Idea of the Good and the Laws of Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to hear your opinion on the following:
In my view, we do have a distinction between the concepts of good and evil, but without moral laws there is no prohibition against doing evil. That is, there exists a kind of “idea” that shows what things are good and bad, but it does not command that evil is indeed forbidden to do.
If what I am saying is correct, then what you wrote in the fourth booklet about the need for a moral lawgiver would fall away.
Does the Rabbi think this is correct?
Also, I wanted to ask the Rabbi:
A claim is often heard that bad things are not bad in themselves, but are only the absence of good. And in general, our entire understanding of what evil is amounts only to the absence of good (something like the color black as opposed to the color white).
Does the Rabbi accept these ideas? Understand them? If so, I would be glad if he could explain, because I am fairly sure that killing an innocent person is an act that is intrinsically evil, not merely an “absence of good.”
Answer
As I wrote in the booklet, I do not agree with this. Understanding that something is good means that it ought to be done. Someone who understands what is good but does not think it should be done simply does not understand what good is.
This is a bit semantic. In the usual sense, the absence of good is just a neutral act (eating a bread roll for breakfast). That is of course also the absence of evil. Beyond that, there are good acts and bad ones.