Question

Continuing from previous questions, one more point:
 
If I accept the argument that "something" was given at Sinai, I can argue that it is also very plausible to extend that. It is hard to imagine an entire group taking upon itself such an oppressive and arbitrary religious obligation, at such a level of devotion and fanaticism, without a convincing justification. Therefore, although it is not entirely clear what the content of the commandments we received at Sinai was, whether they were well preserved, and whether "noise" was added to them, there is still good reason to think that the justification for why the commandments should be observed was transmitted smoothly, just like the historical report itself. If I promised the children a lemon popsicle, it is not likely that I would manage to convince them—all of them at once—that I had actually promised them raspberry juice.
It follows that the biblical text and the tradition have considerable credibility regarding the question "why should one observe commandments," even if they are less credible regarding the question of what those commandments are.
At the end of "The First Existent," you reject the argument "because it is beneficial" as a valid argument for why there should be religious obligation. But almost everywhere I see in the biblical text, when this issue is addressed, that is the answer: because it is beneficial. It is good. For us and for our children. It prolongs our lives here in the land and makes them good.
 
 
Maybe that actually is a valid argument? If I believe that the Torah was given at Sinai, and that this Torah included commandments and directives, and that the reason to observe them was also given, namely—that it will be good for us—then maybe that is a good enough reason and no others are needed?
Whoever or whatever was revealed at Sinai presumably has miraculous power, so it makes sense that it knows what is good for us. It is very reasonable to trust it. Even if it seems burdensome to me, it knows better than I do. Therefore it is worthwhile for me to listen to it and observe its laws. Does that seem logical to you?
 
Another thing that may follow from this is that if there are commandments that clearly—clearly!—do not do us good, then they are probably errors that became entrenched, and maybe we should look for ways to uproot them. Because by definition they cannot be commandments. Of course, it is very hard to prove that a commandment necessarily causes harm. It could be that genocide would be good for us, in hidden ways that are hard to explain and beyond human understanding. But still, theoretically, the commandments are supposed to do us good, and that gives a conceptual opening for trying to establish criteria and tests for the question of what is a genuine commandment and what is an entrenched error.
What do you think of these ideas?