Q&A: Morality
Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi, according to your view that valid morality exists only if there is a God who gives it validity, would you still agree with me that there is moral realism, which we arrive at through contemplating the idea of the good, the eyes of the intellect, intuition, and conscience, and that there is such a thing as a moral act and an immoral act even without someone giving it validity? That there are really two separate questions:
1. What is moral and how do we arrive at what is moral and what is not?
2. Who gives them validity?
If so, can a person argue that there really is a moral act and an immoral act, but say that it indeed has no validity without God? And if so, is there any blameworthiness in a person who acts immorally even though he is not obligated to act morally?
Answer
No. If there is blameworthiness, that means there is an obligation to act that way. If there is no obligation to act that way, then there is no blame in someone who does not do so. See Column 457.
Discussion on Answer
For the question of what the just act is, I assume that is possible even without God. But there will be no validity to the obligation to act that way. Exactly like morality.
If we have within us a system that tells us what is good and what is bad, why does such a system not validate morality?
Because definitions do not create obligations.
Thank you. Regarding the concept of justice, is it also universal like morality, or is it relative? It is known that the majority decides, but is it just? From its own perspective, its ruling is just, otherwise they would not have decided what they decided. Or can the majority decide something unjust because justice is a universal concept like morality? Do I also need God in order to have just behavior?