Q&A: Definition of Morality
Definition of Morality
Question
Hello.
I am used to defining “morality” as a code of rules according to which a person is obligated to act in all given situations, but from your remarks it seems that there are given situations in which the ruling that obligates a person how to act is given over to Jewish law and not to morality.
True, even in my definition of morality there are things that are not decided by it, such as the color of the floor tiles in my living room, but those are not matters in which there is a proper way one ought to act, and Jewish law also generally does not deal with them. I am asking about cases in which there are halakhic laws that intervene in moral issues—for example, circumcision intervening in the prohibition against causing injury,* or prohibitions of benefit intervening in a person’s right to his property.
If Jewish law requires me to perform an immoral act (such as circumcision), then your ruling, to the best of my understanding, is to perform the circumcision. But in such a case, is performing the circumcision defined as moral in your view, or are we carrying out an immoral act for the sake of a halakhic value?
In addition, if Jewish law establishes actions that do not have moral value, then you certainly define morality differently from the way I defined it here. What is your definition?
*Assuming that circumcision causes only harm, I do not intend here to get into the discussion of whether it has any benefit or not
Answer
I have explained here several times that when there is a clash between Jewish law and morality, it is a conflict. The decision does not always go in favor of Jewish law, nor does it always go in favor of morality. I wrote about this at length in the third book of the trilogy. In the example of circumcision, I would indeed perform the circumcision. But that does not mean it is a moral act. The halakhic value overrides the moral harm.
I truly do not accept your definition of morality. Not every set of rules that guides us is a moral rule. The rules of morality and Jewish law (and the law, and legal ethics for lawyers, and the rules of basketball for someone who plays basketball) together guide us in our lives. I do not understand how one could see the prohibition against eating pork or milk-and-meat as a moral rule.
Discussion on Answer
In short, morality is the collection of rules whose purpose is to improve society and people’s lives. The rules governing relations between one person and another. Do you think that the prohibition against eating pork or milk-and-meat is a moral rule? I do not really understand the problem or why you need definitions. Does the claim that eating pork is not a moral defect really depend on definitions? To me that seems self-evident.
Sorry for the late reply.
I do not actually have a clear opinion on whether eating pork counts as a moral defect, but that is not the point. I asked the question only in order to understand what you mean when you say “morality” on the site, since your definition is not identical to the one I had been using until now, as I do not know of a better definition. (And indeed, the determination of whether eating pork is a moral defect depends on the definition of morality, just as it depends on the definition of pork.)
I need a definition only in order to understand what you are talking about. Thank you very much for the clarification!
That much I understood, aside from the issue of the conflict, which I missed, but you did not answer my main question—how do you define morality? What is the rule that guides us and that you define as moral?