Q&A: A Contradiction Between Value Systems
A Contradiction Between Value Systems
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Lately I’ve been thinking about the relationship between value systems to which we are obligated.
As I understand the Rabbi’s view, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us (among other things) two independent value systems. One of them is the moral system, and the other is the system of commandments. Since they are two different systems, there can be contradictions between them in specific cases.
My question is: if the Holy One, blessed be He, is the one who gave us these two systems, why didn’t He “arrange” them so that there would be no contradictions between them? That is, suppose we have rule x in the moral system (a “do not do” rule), and opposite it rule y in the system of commandments that tells us to violate x in certain cases. In the current situation, we act according to y despite the moral system (because the system of commandments, for a religious person, overrides the moral system). By contrast, if the systems were “arranged,” then when a person acted according to y he would feel that this was required by both systems, or at least required by the system of commandments but neutral from the standpoint of the moral system (that is, violating x would be immoral only when rule y does not conflict with it).
Thank you in advance for any response.
Answer
First, there are contradictions within each of the systems themselves as well. Saving a life versus the Sabbath, or a positive commandment versus a prohibition, and likewise in moral-value conflicts.
The Holy One, blessed be He, did not arrange them to fit each other because these are systems that come to achieve different goals. Jewish law comes to achieve religious goals, and morality social-ethical goals. Sometimes the same act achieves a religious goal but harms a moral value, or vice versa. That is the truth, and there is nothing here to “fix.” In such a situation a conflict is created, and one has to find a practical way to decide it, but the very existence of a conflict is not problematic.
The example I always give for this is an argument about eating chocolate. Reuven says to eat it because it is tasty, and Shimon says not to eat it because it is fattening. Who is right? Both of them. It is both tasty and fattening. In practice, you have to decide which value takes precedence (that is what a hierarchy of values is for).
As for the practical decision between Jewish law and morality, it is impossible to give a sweeping rule, because even moral conduct itself is not formulated in sharp and clear rules (see the Maggid Mishneh at the end of the Laws of Neighbors). Each situation must be judged on its own. And is there a sweeping rule for how to decide even in intra-halakhic conflicts? In every conflict, the Sages examine the matter in depth and make decisions, and there are quite a few different kinds of decisions.
I have a series of classes (in the video lessons) on Jewish law and morality, and there I went into much more detail.