With all due respect, I didn’t find the answer stated “explicitly”… I’d be glad if you could bring it here, or alternatively refer me to a page number in the book

You’re being a bit dishonest. The fact that you don’t commit suicide is a sign that you want to live, even though the world is full of suffering and pain.
You can understand this if you intentionally hold your breath for as long as you can, and then when you go back to breathing you’ll understand how important it is that there is oxygen in the air, despite all the suffering and pain in the world.

By the way, Rabbi, if we follow the approach that there is no such thing as a soul that continues to exist after death, then according to the article why is there a need to punish the murderer? After all, it’s impossible to assess how much the person is worth after he dies (= absence). So how can that murderer be punished?

To The Last Decisor.
The fact that a person does not commit suicide is not proof that he directly desires life, because the reason he does not commit suicide lies in the fact that a person was created with a system of instincts that prevents him from committing suicide, and not because of a direct desire for life.

Eli, it’s in the same chapter you read. Impossible to miss. That is why I defined gratitude there as philosophical rather than ethical. I elaborated more in the article I referred you to:

הכרת טובה: בין מוסר לאונטולוגיה

K,
The punishment for a murderer is a criminal punishment, not a civil one. That is, punishing the murderer is not compensation to the victim or his family, but punishment for an offense. So it has no connection at all to the matter at hand.
Moreover, regarding his family, one certainly can compare a situation in which he had not been murdered and could have supported them to a situation in which he was murdered and cannot. In that case he is assessed like a slave. But this depends on whether a free man has monetary value, although in my opinion even if he does not, it would not be for the reason you suggest. This is not the place for it.

Where does the court derive its authority to impose criminal punishments? Their purpose is only to improve society, no? (I agree that this can be the purpose of a religious court as well, like flogging.)
How does this fit with a relativistic view of morality?

I don’t understand. How did we get to relativistic morality? Every punishment imposed by a religious court is a criminal punishment. If there are other questions that aren’t related, it’s best to formulate them and open a separate thread.

Abraham Aharon,

A direct desire is the desire that comes from instincts, because it reaches the will directly.
If instincts are not involved, then we are dealing with an indirect, pampered desire in which a person disconnects from reality (from instincts) and invents for himself a world without suffering (without clashes between instincts), and then compares reality to that unrealistic fantasy and says, “I am sick of my life.” But that is an indirect desire that stems from ignoring reality.

To sum up: the fact that a person does not commit suicide means that he does not truly want to commit suicide.

Thank you very much. Indeed, the article clarified for me very well the issue that was presented only briefly in the book.