Q&A: Emotional or Matter-of-Fact Attitude
Emotional or Matter-of-Fact Attitude
Question
I have a personal question that I wouldn't ask an average person, but since you are an honest person, I'll raise it:
In your columns and responsa, you tend to criticize both those to your right and those to your left (religiously or politically). But from regular reading on the site, it seems quite clear that while the criticism of those on the left (atheists, determinists, the radical left, etc.) is dry and matter-of-fact, the criticism of those to your right (Haredim, Hardalim, the far right) tends to be mixed with a lot of emotion. I think this reality is clear to any unbiased reader, and the question is: what is the difference?
Answer
That isn't my impression, but it's in the eye of the beholder. I tried to think: if you're right, what could the reason be? And I found two. There are two main differences between the sides: 1. The side to my right, from my perspective, is my own side, so my criticism of it may be different. Usually people criticize their own camp more. For example, Haredim criticize the religious or the Reform more harshly than they criticize secular people. 2. There is a difference between criticism that stems from a disagreement of views and criticism of anti-moral conduct. Among the Haredim, it's the latter.
Discussion on Answer
There is no such thing as an anti-moral position, so long as it is sincere. If that is indeed their position, then that is what they think. What do you want them to do? It's like blaming religious people for Rabin's murder, which was carried out on the basis of religious belief. What do the accusers expect—that I should give up my religious faith because of that danger? I believe and am committed as a matter of fact.
Thank you very much for the answer.
Regarding the second explanation, in your opinion are atheism or determinism not anti-moral positions? After all, if there is no objective obligating source, or if there is no free will, then good and evil have no meaning at all. That is a position that is opposed to the very concept of morality itself. To me, that sounds much worse than an anti-moral position on a specific issue.