Q&A: Morality — Lacking or Goal-Oriented?
Morality — Lacking or Goal-Oriented?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
You quote Leibowitz in several places as saying that moral values are values without a purpose, but rather ends in themselves (like any value).
Even so, in the fifth notebook, when you discuss the question of whether morality can be the purpose of creation and existence, you determine that it cannot, because you understand morality as a set of principles that help maintain an orderly and proper society.
My question is how these things fit together. Is a moral act an end in itself, or is it a means to a proper society?
Thank you,
Nathan
Answer
For some reason I missed this question, so I’m answering late.
The purpose of morality is to improve society. I do not disagree with that accepted view.
But that is the purpose from the perspective of the One who created it (the Holy One, blessed be He). From the standpoint of a person who behaves morally, it is an intrinsic value. Therefore he is supposed to act that way because it is right (a categorical imperative), even without considerations of benefit to society (or to himself).
And what closes the circle is this: as I showed in Column 122, acting specifically in that way is precisely what improves society.
[In parentheses: in many cases people mix together a discussion of the purpose of something from the perspective of whoever created it, with a discussion of its purpose from the perspective of whoever carries it out. The Euthyphro dilemma touches on this.]
Discussion on Answer
I read Column 122 that you mentioned.
And also the 2 possibilities you noted at the end of the article for a renewed distinction between altruism and utility.
In your answer here, you distinguish between God’s purpose and morality’s purpose from our perspective.
But in the end, if I know that morality was created for the sake of improving society, how can I act from a different motive? Isn’t that a kind of closing one’s eyes?
I’d perhaps like to suggest (following the possibilities in the article) that the purposes (improving society and the categorical imperative) are intertwined, and maybe they are the same thing.
That is, morality really was created for the sake of improving society, and I act in accordance with the categorical imperative in order to contribute to improving society. The categorical imperative defines for me how one ought to act in order to improve society. Not surprisingly, that is the simple meaning of “a practical rule that I would want to become a universal law.” Improving society is synonymous with “a universal law,” and is really deductive from the categorical imperative, not a new explanation/reason.
Do you agree? (And if not, why isn’t this just closing one’s eyes?)
Zehava, if you want an answer, please spell out the questions. I don’t have time here for riddles.
Nathan, I don’t see the difficulty. I know that from my perspective morality has value in itself. It perfects me. So I do it regardless of the result. At the same time, I also know that the Holy One, blessed be He, intended morality for the benefit of society. I don’t see any closing of the eyes here. Think about charity, for example (which I discussed in one of the columns). Its purpose is benefit to the poor person, but the Holy One, blessed be He, could have just given money to the poor person and that would be that. Why does He require it of me? Because my action also has intrinsic value. So He takes the general goal (improving society / the state of the poor person) and imposes it on me.
In a parallel question I explained it this way: after all, in order to achieve the result, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not need me. He could do it Himself. So why did He impose it on me? Because it also has value for my own perfection.
In Column 122 you raised the possibility that one can do the moral act for the sake of improving society, and after understanding what I explained there (the prisoner’s dilemma), behave that way even when there are no immediate results (because in the end there are). That is indeed a possibility, and it seems to me that is what you are saying here.
But my own feeling is that morality has intrinsic value and not only consequential value, and therefore I tend toward the first direction that I suggested here.
I also had an understanding that morality has value in itself, until I encountered the statement that morality was created for the purpose of improving society.
Until now, when I asked myself, “Why give charity? Why not harm people? Why honor parents?”, the answer was, “Because it’s right.” I had no explanation for the feeling, or any answer other than “just because,” but there was a strong intuition that this is what is right. And for me the meaning was that it has value in itself.
Now when I ask myself the same question, I have an answer, and it sounds very reasonable to me: “It’s right, because that way society is more properly ordered. In a proper society people give charity to the poor, do not harm people, and honor parents.” Of course, with the addition of the categorical imperative and the fact that a proper society is a value.
1. Don’t you agree with this picture? Don’t you answer yourself this way?
2. Is that a consequentialist consideration? And if so, why is a consideration like “because it perfects me” not also a consequentialist consideration?
3. A somewhat side question, but regarding charity: don’t you hold that He imposes it on you and does not do it Himself because He generally does not intervene?
(It could be that now the answer will be along the lines of “I said what I had to say,” but I’m trying my luck :))
I really do not understand why repeat the same things. I explained exactly this. If you disagree, then please explain why and what it is you do not agree with.
From the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, morality is intended to improve society; from our perspective, it is done as an intrinsic value. In other words, I do things in order to improve society, but why improve society? Because that has intrinsic value (that way I am a better person).
If so, then I didn’t understand that that was what you meant. Thanks for the answers.
On what basis is it said that “this is the purpose of the One who created it (the Holy One, blessed be He)”? And moreover, what kind of morality are we talking about here?