Q&A: Morality
Morality
Question
Hello and blessings,
- It seems to me that you argue that morality is a kind of idea that we contemplate, and we simply “see” that we need to fulfill the implication of that idea. I agree that morality is objective and not subjective, but according to what I “see” with my intellect, it is a broader version of “what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” I do not want someone to do something to me that would hurt me, and therefore I do not do it to others. And in the context of the categorical imperative, I do not want to do something such that, if everyone did it, my situation would be miserable. That is, if something were considered legitimate, people would do it, and in the end it could reach me too; therefore I do not grant it legitimacy and I think it is bad. In other words, I am not looking at some idea; I am simply making a “calculation.” I would be happy to understand whether there is some flaw in what I am saying.
- I would appreciate it if you could direct me to your column on Adam and Eve and the “sin” (if there is such a column). I know you do not really deal with this. But it is not clear to me what additional knowledge was added to them, since it seems that even before that they already had the power to distinguish between good and evil and to choose, because otherwise they could not have been commanded regarding the prohibition.
On this occasion I would like to thank you for all your articles, books, and videos, which satisfy the mind that thirsts for logic and truth. And also thank you for addressing questions, and sorry for the trouble.
Answer
1. There is a conflation here between different levels of discussion. The question of what counts as a moral act may perhaps be the result of a calculation. But the question of why there is an obligation to act that way, why the moral imperative has validity, is a different question. For that, moral realism and God at its foundation are required. I believe I explained this distinction in detail in Column 457 and in the fourth conversation, part 3, in The First Existent (resolving a contradiction in Kant).
2. You mean Maimonides’ words in the Guide, chapter 2. He is not speaking about moral good and evil, but about manners and social norms. Moral good and evil are intelligibles, not conventions accepted by the public. I wrote a column about this (search for “Conventions and Intelligibles”).
Many thanks.