Q&A: Obligation
Obligation
Question
Hello and blessings. I saw that the Rabbi dealt with the question “What obligates me?” and I understood that the Rabbi says that religious obligation stems from recognizing that “this is the truth,” just as understanding that a certain action is a moral value is enough to “obligate” me to do it.
I would like to ask: why is this called an “obligation”? Why am I “obligated”? As I understand it, this is more a matter of “wanting” than of “having to.”
What does “obligated” mean? “Murder is bad” — okay, so why does that obligate me? Understanding that something is bad can cause me not to want to do it; why is that called obligation?
In short: I would be happy if the Rabbi could explain to me what the concept of “having to” is, and whether there is even such a thing as “having to” at all.
Thank you very much.
Answer
I don’t know how to reduce the concept of obligation to other concepts. To say that because something is bad, therefore I have a desire not to do it, misses the point, for two main reasons: 1. Not everyone has that desire. 2. Even someone who doesn’t still may not do it.
Discussion on Answer
And a continuation of question 2.
Even if someone determined it, why does that mean that I “have to”? (In general I don’t understand what “have to” means.)
Obviously, someone who hasn’t experienced it doesn’t know. Just as someone who hasn’t experienced sight doesn’t know what sight is, and someone who hasn’t experienced love doesn’t know what love is. What is novel about that? My claim is that if someone has experienced it, then he knows, and he has no need to engage in sophistry with himself in order to define it in terms of other concepts.
There is nothing subjective here. It is objective exactly like things you see. Except that this is seen with the eyes of the intellect and not with the eyes of flesh.
If it’s intuition — then it’s closer to emotion — if it’s closer to emotion, then desire (desire = emotion)
Dear Bניה, I don’t eat a cheeseburger even though I want to, because I’m obligated not to eat it. And even if I do end up eating a cheeseburger, the obligation not to eat it remains. What does that have to do with desire?
Dear Bניה, if you don’t eat a cheeseburger even though you have the option, that’s a sign that you don’t really want to eat a cheeseburger. Wanting is not just “what is fun for me,” convenient for me, and what I feel like doing; a person can also choose to do things that aren’t fun of his own free will.
In your example, *the Holy One, blessed be He, commands me not to eat a cheeseburger* — now there are two possibilities: 1. To obey. That is, I want to do what I was told to do. 2. Not to obey. That is, even though I was told to do something, I choose not to do it, and in fact I do not want to do what I was told.
— Why does the fact that I was told to do something turn it into an *obligation*? If I want to, I’ll fulfill it; if I don’t want to, I won’t fulfill it. Very simple.
“Obligated” is a sanitized word for a desire that arises in order to avoid a negative feeling like fear.
Thanks for the answer, but it’s still a bit hard for me:
1. Even according to your view, if someone doesn’t experience that something is bad, there’s no way to explain to him why not to do that action. So from that standpoint there’s no advantage to “obligation”; it’s the same thing — in both cases it doesn’t exist for everyone…
2. I couldn’t understand: is this “forbidden” something objective? If so, who determined it? Seemingly it depends on a subjective experience… And if it depends on subjective experience, why not simply define it as desire?