Q&A: The Intellectual Implications of Belief in Morality
The Intellectual Implications of Belief in Morality
Question
With God's help
Peace unto you,
I wanted to ask the honored Rabbi,
In the fourth booklet, regarding the theological proof from morality, you presented the claim that a conception of objective normative facts in the moral realm entails an implicit belief in God.
I saw that there is a famous dispute in the holy community of America on this discussion: whether this is the Idea of the Good (and I assume the Rabbi identifies that with God), or whether morality is part of those facts that are necessary realities, like the laws of logic or mathematics. The reason given by those who make the second claim is that one cannot conceive of a possible world in which the laws of morality would not be valid, and if so they are necessary realities, and consequently morality would not entail an implicit belief in God. (For example, as I understand it, this is Richard Swinburne's view.)
In any case, I wanted to ask the Rabbi three major questions, for the view that identifies the Idea of the Good with God:
1. In other columns you wrote that there are additional normative systems, such as legal systems and more. Do they too, in your view, entail belief in God? If not, why not?
2. If God had commanded different commands—for example, to kill this person or that person—would we perceive that as something good? Doesn't it sound *strange* to you to think such a thing?
3. Is there any meaning to the statement that God is the ultimate good? After all, He Himself is not good; rather, He legislated laws that we define as good. So what does it mean that He Himself is good? It sounds like arbitrary goodness….
Answer
Even if these are laws, there must necessarily be a lawgiver. Especially laws that there is no necessity to obey (after all, one can behave immorally. By contrast, one cannot deviate from the laws of nature).
Of course one can conceive of a world with different laws; it is just that in your eyes right now they would not be good. But one can conceive of a world in which I would be constituted in such a way that I would think those laws are the good ones.
- Indeed, every system of laws presupposes at its foundation some entity that obligates one to act in accordance with it. In the final analysis, that is always the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus, in the laws of the state, what stands at the foundation is the state, or the legislator, or society. But when you ask why one should obey them (because it is hard to accept the fact that they merely said something as sufficient to give them binding force), you will arrive at God.
- This relates to the Euthyphro dilemma. In a world like ours one cannot conceive of other laws that would be good, but one can conceive of another world in which other laws would be considered good. Therefore the laws do not stand above the Holy One, blessed be He, but they do stand above Him in the sense that in this given world no other moral laws are possible. Exactly as He can create a triangle or a quadrilateral, but the sum of the angles is not in His hands in the sense that if He created a triangle, the sum of the angles is necessarily 180. But the One who determined that the world would be this way, and that this would be the sum of its angles, is God.
- Here I did not understand the question. See section 2. In our world it is not possible to legislate other laws that would be good.
Discussion on Answer
A. I claim that they are not necessary realities. The laws of logic are not really laws. It is only the same term being used. I have explained this here several times.
B. By that definition, every law is its own cause. Even if the rules of chess have no validity, the rules of chess command you to play chess this way and not another.
C. Being able to imagine a world in which you would think so is not the same as being able to imagine a world in which that is how things would be. See section A.
1. If it sounded bizarre to me, I wouldn’t write it. If you obey for some utilitarian reason, that is not obedience. If you see them as binding by virtue of the mere fact that there is a law, there is no such thing without God.
2. There is a value reality (the Idea of the Good; moral realism). God is the one who created it.
3. I do not see any problem with that. He created the concept of good, and now I use that concept to describe Him Himself. He created the concept of man and human beings, and we use human language and human terms to describe Him. He created the concept of time, and I use it to describe Him. According to Kant, man created the concept of time (it is transcendental; it does not exist in reality itself), and nevertheless I describe human beings in terms of time.
I’d be glad to ask a few questions to understand this better,
A. You claim that even if these are laws, they have a lawgiver—did you mean the principle of sufficient reason? But it is important to remember that we are speaking here about laws that must be; one cannot conceive that murdering someone for no reason is good. If so, these are laws that are their own reason (because they are necessary realities, like the laws of logic).
B. Further on you wrote that these are laws whose existence is not necessary, because one can behave immorally—but that is not correct. The law stands as it is and commands you to behave morally. It makes no difference whether in practice you do so. So I really did not understand the argument here.
C. You certainly hold that logic is a law that is true in every possible world, yet one can imagine a world in which I *think* that a thing and its opposite are some one thing. Or that 1+1=3. Likewise, from the other side, why don’t you hold that the laws of logic require positing God behind them?
1. If I understood correctly, you are saying that if it is an idea, there is no reason to obey it. Therefore one must posit a validating factor called God. Further on, your words also somewhat imply that in order for us to have a reason to obey the laws of the state, we also need God behind them. Am I right? Doesn’t that sound bizarre to you?
2. Why, in your view, is it impossible in this world to create other moral laws? There is no direct connection between morality and factual reality, which is normatively neutral.
3. What I asked here was a theological question. There is a well-known assumption that God is good. But if He legislated the good, then how can it be said that He Himself is “good” as an attribute of His.