Q&A: What Advantage Does the Wise Man Have Over the Fool?
What Advantage Does the Wise Man Have Over the Fool?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I recently read your column “A Mathematical Look at Consequentialist Ethics” (columns 253–254),
where you wrestled with questions such as whether I should vote in elections, the problem of air pollution, etc., when in all these cases my own harm or benefit is not felt at all.
Seemingly, the very discussion or even the thinking about such topics is not helpful, and may even be harmful. Voters who (mistakenly) think that their vote will make a difference will have more representation in the Knesset. Similarly, a society whose members think that their pollution is harmful will have cleaner air.
In the prisoner’s dilemma and in many other cases in game theory, it is actually preferable that both sides not be so smart, but rather make a mistake and think that if they betray, the other side will betray too.
I also heard you say that in your opinion, studying theoretical physics, and through that reaching the foundations of physics, is more important than studying practical physics, which the engineer studies.
Why? What is so important about arriving at the truth? Wouldn’t it be better to study the things that will bring me / society the greatest benefit?
Thank you,
Eli
Answer
I am not a pragmatist. In my view, usually the truth is more important than anything else. And if people choose to make bad use of it—that’s their problem (and all of ours). Maybe there are extreme cases of immediate and severe harm in which I would act differently. Usually not.
Discussion on Answer
That is in fact what you meant. After all, you wrote that people who know the truth will make bad use of it.
In my view, the good requires no less justification than the true. Values, by virtue of being values, do not have justifications. If they had justifications, they would not be values but means.
A. Does that mean that the root of a person’s values is not rational? And we’re talking about values for which it is seemingly a conflict that they be arbitrary and non-rational, such as the value of truth. By force of that very value, I need to arrive at the truth even though I did not arrive at the truth regarding that value itself? It comes out that I do not apply the implication of the value to the value itself.
{By contrast, if my values are striving to do good, then the value itself fulfills the meaning of the value. (Maybe in rare cases it doesn’t. Don’t hold me to the word….) Or at least it can fulfill the meaning of the value.}
Or does the Rabbi hold that if values are arbitrary in nature, then there is no possibility of coming and disqualifying them on the basis of any claims whatsoever.
B. What does the Rabbi think, then, is the source of a person’s values? Psychological? I mean, certainly it’s psychological; does the Rabbi mean to say that it is only psychological and that intellect and reasons are irrelevant here even if a person thinks about it all day.
Definitely rational. Every rational consideration is based on foundational assumptions. Those emerge from reflection on intuition. That is the basis of every rational consideration. Values are the result of reflection on ethical intuition (= conscience). I’ve discussed this at length in Truth and Stability and in The Quartet.
Reasons are relevant here, but not logical arguments (because the discussion is about the foundational assumptions of ethical arguments). This is the domain called rhetoric (as distinct from logic). See there and there.
Agreed. It seems to me that the point of disagreement here is whether truth is a value in itself, or a means of reaching the good.
Okay, got it. “The basis of every rational consideration” is not rational but conscientious. I understood that in order to justify something rationally, one must use only reason itself. You added another component, so the decision is no longer purely rational. It is conscientious reasoning that has undergone rational evolution. Is that what is called a rational consideration or a rationalizing intellect?
I got the impression that a reason is a means of justifying something. If this is only rhetoric and not logic, then there is no justification, only transfer of information, and it may be mistaken. So justification will not help in reaching a reliable source for values.
For some reason I’m not managing to make myself clear. I wrote that this is a rational consideration. In every field, at the base of logic there are assumptions that come from intuition. These assumptions are part of reason. Intuition in the ethical domain is what is called conscience. What is unclear here? There is nothing special about the realm of values in this respect.
Why is intuition legitimate only in axioms? Why not extend its use beyond that as well?
When I’m in an argument, I can simply say that any claim I make needs no justification because it is an axiom. What difference does it make whether only the basis is axiomatic and intuitive or whether the “conclusion” is also intuition? The legitimacy is the same.
I lost you. Any claim that you accept by force of intuition is, by definition, an assumption. A conclusion is a claim that follows from assumptions by means of a logical argument / inference.
I mean that I can claim that all Americans are liars. Usually people would verify that saying by means of a logical argument / inference. I found a route that bypasses claims that can be refuted: intuition!!! Then I don’t owe anyone an explanation, and there you have it—all Americans are liars, and I don’t need to prove it, and it cannot be refuted, and this is a rational consideration.
You can claim anything. If your intuition indeed says that, then it is an assumption and not a conclusion. But that does not mean it cannot be refuted. An assumption is not something certain. If contrary facts are brought, you will have to give up that intuition. What is the problem here?
I didn’t mean people who choose to make bad use of truth / wisdom. My claim is that in some cases, knowledge can actually be harmful (for example, in the prisoner’s dilemma), even if the person has the best intentions.
My axiom is that our purpose in the world is to do good, while truth / wisdom can help us toward that goal in very many cases.
It sounds from your words that in your view, the importance of searching for truth is itself an axiom, one that even overrides the aspiration to do good. Why does truth have value in itself, and why does it override the goal of doing good?