What do you think regarding values and morality, which reason recognizes as existing and binding? Could one say that they are a “concept that is entirely new and different from anything familiar to us,” and therefore they must have been given to us by an external source? (A proof in Descartes’ style, only replacing God with morality.)
I mean aside from the very fact that reason “observes” the idea of morality (intuition, in the foreign term).

Or do we trust intuition only in matters like these, which cannot be reached by logical inference, but are rather a concept that is entirely new, etc.?

I agree with that formulation. Values are a concept essentially different from facts, and our experience yields only facts. Therefore, anyone who accepts the validity of values is in effect assuming that there is something external, the observation of which yields them. God is the source that created this external something. See the fourth notebook.

You wrote, “Therefore anyone who accepts the validity of values is in effect assuming…” In other words, that’s only a revealing argument, not an inferential one.
But perhaps Descartes’ argument can also be formulated as an inferential argument proving the existence of the idea of values, as follows:
Premise A: Reason recognizes the existence of the concepts of values and morality.
Premise B: Reason cannot create out of nothing a completely new concept; it can only recognize concepts it receives from the senses, or expand those concepts, or else recognize the concept directly (“the eyes of the intellect”), parallel to the five senses.
Premise C: The five senses cannot recognize the concepts of values and morality.
Conclusion: There is a direct channel between reason and the idea of values and morality, such that it recognizes it directly (the sixth sense — “the eyes of the intellect”).

Correction: But perhaps based on the structure of Descartes’ argument, etc.

Too many incorrect things have been written here.
Reason does not recognize morality or values. The person recognizes them. And he recognizes them in the negative sense. A person fears the feelings of guilt he will have if he goes against his conscience.
This is psychology. And nothing beyond that.

P.S.
The Torah commands, “Do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes.” “After your hearts” = “moral intuition.” “After your eyes” = “moral reason.”

Decisor,
A person who is willing to sacrifice his life for his principles—do you esteem him? And if so, why?

(You wrote, “Too many incorrect things have been written here,” but so far I’ve found only one thing that, in your view, is incorrect.)

One, what does this have to do with God? The discussion was about a proof of His existence.

Descartes’ discussion was about a proof of God’s existence. But I’m not talking about that. I’m only trying to prove the existence of the idea of values and morality. (I’m taking from Descartes only the structure of the argument: ruling out the possibility that the concept was created by reason even though it does not exist outside it. There is still some difference, because Descartes does not assume that there is some observation with the eyes of the intellect of divine perfection; rather, that the concept of perfection was given to us by God.)
Regarding the idea of values and morality—is my argument valid?

(Of course, if we prove this idea, that would also prove the existence of God as the source of morality, since in the teaching of our Rabbi, may he live long, we learned that there is no morality without God.)

I wrote that I agree with that. But the one who started the thread was talking about a proof of the existence of God.

You wrote that you agree with it as a *revealing* argument, and afterward I suggested that it could also be an *inferential* argument, and about that I’d like to hear your opinion.

(I’m the one who started the thread.)

In my opinion your argument also has a revealing character. You can claim that there is no correspondence, and then you won’t need to assume the existence of a coordinating mechanism.

How can one claim there is no correspondence? After all, my reason recognizes a concept that it cannot invent on its own!

“A person who is willing to sacrifice his life for his principles—do you esteem him? And if so, why?”
It depends. It can end in esteem or in contempt. Usually contempt.

One has to be a complete idiot to think that God implanted in us the concept of perfection. Human beings learned that concept from their acquaintance with complete idiots.

Reason does not invent concepts. Maybe mathematical concepts. Concepts are formed in the psyche.

Conscience is a structure in the psyche. A rather cruel one. If you do not follow it, it punishes you with feelings of guilt.

One, indeed. Agreed.

I don’t think we understood Descartes’ argument properly.
The anthropological proof goes like this:
1. An idea with a certain content is caused by something with reality equal to or greater than what is represented in the idea, because something more perfect does not arise from something less perfect.
2. We have an idea of an infinite being—one that includes all ideas—there is reality to infinite content.
3. Only an infinite thing can be the cause of an infinite idea.

Conclusion: God exists.

Can evolution serve as a refutation of the anthropological proof? After all, it is possible that the concept of perfection was imprinted in us with the help of evolution because of some survival need or another. (After all, mutations can affect the way we think, and perhaps also our conceptual world.)

I wrote above that the proof doesn’t exist, so why do we need refutations?