Q&A: Proof from Morality
Proof from Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I thought of a proof for the existence of God from morality: a0
1. Morality is primordial; it has always existed (moral objectivism).
2. Morality speaks about human beings (because a frog swallowing a mosquito is morally neutral).
3. Human beings were created only after morality already existed.
From this it follows that: a0
morality referred to man even before human beings were created. a0
Does morality know the future? The conclusion seems to be one of two possibilities: either morality is a personal, omniscient entity (God as the idea of the good), or it was created by someone who knew the future that would occur.
What does the Rabbi think about this? a0
Thank you very much, and have a pleasant day.
Answer
How do you know that it is primordial? You are assuming that without reason. Beyond that, there is no necessity to assume that morality is an existent entity. And third, morality is such that if there were creatures like human beings, it would obligate them. But that does not mean they actually will exist.
Discussion on Answer
Exactly like logic. Therefore it is not necessarily an existent entity. The laws of logic too are always valid, but they do not "exist." Look here on the site for the distinction between the laws of logic and other systems of laws.
As for the comparison to morality, see column 457.
If morality is not an existent entity, why do I need to assume that God created it or gave it validity?
And with your permission, Rabbi, I want to sharpen my point: a0
Mathematics is true even without the existence of objects to which it applies: 4 = 2 + 2 is true even before the world was created. Mathematics is simply indifferent to the objects to which it applies! a0
So I have no problem with the fact that mathematics existed before the objects that I can count, because they came later. a0
By contrast, the statement "It is forbidden to murder a human being" is meaningless before there is any human being on earth. And since we assume that morality preceded man (whether it is primordial or not), then there is here "knowledge" of what will come to exist in the future.
Even if morality is not an existent entity, while there is no need to create it, there is a need to give it validity. I referred you to column 457.
The statement that if there is life, it has value, does not depend on the existence of life. Exactly like logic.
And still, in order to say "if there is life, it has value" I first need to know what life is even if it does not actually exist.
Mathematics determines that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180, and for that you do not need to know what a triangle is. The mathematical rules exist regardless and independently of that.
Why don t you need to know what a triangle is? In what way is a triangle different from a circle and a quadrilateral, whose angle sums are 360? Without a triangle, there is no sum of the angles of a triangle.
The sum of the angles in a triangle is a result of the axioms of geometry alone. And they do not require knowing what a triangle is. Once triangles were invented, it automatically follows that the sum of their angles is 180. So too regarding the value of life and the rules of morality.
Interesting. Thank you very much, and more power to you!
Thank you very much for your response!
The Rabbi said: "Morality is such that if there were creatures like human beings, it would obligate them." If so, morality is not dependent on any particular time; even if there had been a planet of human-like creatures a hundred trillion years ago, morality would have obligated them. Therefore morality is primordial, like mathematics and logic.
And I would be glad for an explanation of the sentence, "There is no necessity to assume that morality is an existent entity." I m not sure I understood it. After all, we assume that morality does not depend on our feelings.