- This topic has 46 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
So this post is not directly related to any recent post, though a very exciting recent thread got me thinking.
Halacha is to a certain extent relative. I dont know if relative is the best, so here me out and perhaps supply a better term.
Much of Yahdus has machlokisism involved, we have ways or resolving the machlokes since obviously we need consensus, (for example yachid verabim or Halcha is like so and so by mamanus, or we pasken like B”H etc)The general understanding is neither is wrong (eilu veilu.)
Modern day poskim are given even more leeway since if a posek follows generally accepted guidelines and pasken mutar then it is 100% muttar for his followers to adhere to his psak. If another posek comes to a different conclusion then it is assur for his followers. BOTh are 100% right. Since Halacha isnt an absolute yes/no but a process.
I dont think this was controversial. Nor do I think anybody would argue with the above, unless I’m not being clear.
I’m wondering if morality is different. OBviosuly Halcah and morality are intertwined. As was made clear on some recent posts. IF halacha allows for say killing someone (Beis din, rodef)then it isnt immoral in THAT situation.
So how about with a machlokes. It seems funny that morallity is dependent on what a particular posek says. Since I think most people view morality as an absolute.
What is “morality”? Morality is halacha. If it is anything halacha says to do, it is moral. If it is anything halacha says not to do, it is immoral. There is no concept of “morality” within Judaism that differs from halacha in any way.
If halacha says to kill someone, it is moral to kill him and it is immoral not to kill him.
Morality is halacha.
Sigh….I’ve had the same question for ages. Discussed it here once (see here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/using-physical-force#post-49188)
Morality is not halacha. As Orthodox Jews we can only hope that our morals come from the Torah but given today’s society that is often not the case.
“So morailty is relative?”
I didn’t address this question in my preceding comment.
“Because in a case of a machlokes, for person A the same act is moral and for person b it is immoral.”
That can very well be the case. It would be immoral to break a minhag inappropriately. If someone’s psak is to do A while another person’s psak is not to do A, it would be moral for the first person to do it but immoral for the second person to do it.
“I’m not setting up a argument per se, it just seems funny.”
May I submit that you might find it funny because your idea of morality is influenced by non-Jewish ideas on the subject?
“Incidently there is a moral sense outside of halacha. Rashi says in many places that “mishpatim” are rules that we would come up with on our own like no stealing, no killing etc…
Though this doesnt disagree with your main point, which may not be incorrect”
Those examples are within halacha, not outside it (killing and stealing are halachic points – even if we could have figured them out on our own), so I’m not following your point on that.
Is morality confined to bein adam l’chaveiro, or does it include being adam l’Makom?
Is it moral for a non Jew to lend money with interest, but immoral for a Jew?
IOW, define morality.
ubiquitin,
Interesting OP. These are some of my thoughts in no particular order.
1. Halacha seems to me to be a system of applied morality. Hashem created a universe with moral principles, some of which we understand, some we do not, and gave us the Torah as a means to apply those principles in our lives.
2. I disagree that “much of Yahdus has machlokisism involved”; I think that for the vast majority of halacha there is broad agreement, and the disagreements come over a small subset of finer points.
3. Even when given a machlokes, I see a big difference between machlokes and moral relativity. Ashenazim and Separdim wrap their tefillin differently, but both sides agree that tefillin should be worn, and that it consists of black boxes with pesukim inside, leather straps, etc. Nobody (frum at least) is coming along and saying, “we need new tefillin for the 21st Century!”
I’m going to quote myself in regards to Joe:
If you define Halacha as “morality”, that is perfectly understood. Just realize that you are not using the word in the way other people would understand it. It is like calling an object with four walls, a roof and a door a “cat” because that is what you think a “cat” should look like.
streekgeek, thanks for the link, and I doubt anything new will come out of us looking at it again.
gavra, and I’ll quote myself in regards to that point:
There is no concept of “morality” within Judaism that differs from halacha in any way.
Joe – exactly. You define morality as Halacha. Therefore, you are discussing something different than everybody else here.
gavra, so far no one else here has specifically defined a morality that differs from halacha and what that has to do with the Torah, if anything. I’d like to read your comment where you’ll be the first to define it otherwise as such.
Thus far the consensus agrees with how I defined it.
Joe – go back to the prior threads where this has been discussed ad nauseam. The one Streetgeek referenced is one of many.
Man made morality is relative the torah is not.
lol. me and joe agree? a first.
I suppose that if morality is defined as “beliefs about correct behavior” (which is a paraphrase of me quoting websters in the above link), it can be subjective and thus relative.
If however, the question is not “what are the beliefs?” but rather “what should one’s beliefs be?”, the answer that orthodox judaism proffers is “whatever god says” otherwise known contemporaneously as “torah applied” or as “halacha.”
Not sure of morality, but I would define ethical as the lessening of suffering of conscious beings.
Maybe that can get us on the right track.
Regarding machloket, it depends. if it is l’shem Shemayim it is very important as it clarifies positions. Rabbi Yochana fired Rabbi Eleizer ben Pedat as his chevruta becuase he was a yes-man (Baba Metzia 84a). The test is whether or not they are friends outside the context of the machloket.
As for morality in general, ye, it is relative. Lying is generally an aveira. However, Hashem lied to Avraham about Sara’s laughing for the sake of shelom bayit.
Really, mods? If you didn’t let the link through, fine. But what’s wrong with the post?
R’ Aharon Lichtenstein wrote a classic article on this issue titled, “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha?”
First off I have never heard anyone refer to ???? as a process. You be refering to Mesorah, but not a process. Furthermore, the difference between morality halachah is quite simple. Halachah doesnt change yet morality can. In a non GOD system morality can be a moving target. Take abortion, one decade it was considered immoral and the next decade it wasnt. Take the nazis yms”m. They were able to kill yidden on a daily basis, yet when they got home at night, they were able to kiss their kids good night and sleep peacefully. In a non GOD system: in a democracy, society dictates what is moral and what isn’t. In a dictatorship, the dictator decides what is moral. In a GOD system where there is halachah, it remains a constant. The reason we respect our parents is because the torah says so and not because society says that is the moral thing to do. ????.
Morality doesn’t change. People’s ideas about it can.
Reb Yid, morality when god doesn’t exist is just an idea, and those change. There are many topics you can go back over time and see how they have changed. Toeivah marriage for example. It was considered immoral for thousands of years, yet according to the progressive left liberal agenda one needs to be inclusive and otherwise is immoral.
Histakel b’Oraisa uvara alma.
HKB”H created morality, and gave people the ability to tune into it. Avraham Avinu did the ultimate in this regard; he kept kol haTorah kulah without a direct tzivui because he reached such a high level that his ratzon was in sync with Hashem’s.
Asking what the world would look like without Hashem (or what morality would be) is an exercise in futility. It’s like asking what would the ocean be without water. It’s definitionally impossible.
What is a little more reasonable to ask is how much morality can one have without knowing any Torah. I doubt we’re held responsible for not achieving what Avraham Avinu did, but I think a certain level of morality is expected, such as not killing, not stealing, and arayos. It comes from an inherent sense of right and wrong which Hashem granted to human beings, which on its most basic level manifests itself in what we refer to as “morality”.
Talking about morality without Hashem, or talking about anything without Hashem, is futile, because nothing exists or can exist without Him, not even “in theory”.
No.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz has some (albeit quite controversial) interesting views on Torah and morality. He pretty much rejects that the Torah and halacha are moral. He argues that because God is so above human understanding, any attempt to qualify mitzvos as moral is pointless. Again, very controversial,but interesting.
Similar discussion: click here
Brisker Rov: It’s a Machlokes Rishonim whether “Natural Law” exists and why that may or may not be relevant.
ElizabethTower2, as you said, it’s a similar discussion, but not an identical one. The question there addresses whether an innate sense of morality is independent of that which one is taught, whilst the debate over moral relativity or moral objectivity centres on whether an action that is undoubtedly immoral from one point of view, for example, from the point of view of a terror victim, can be moral from another’s view, e.g. perpetrator of said terror attack. The debate here doesn’t seem to truly recognize what moral relativity as a a concept actually is. I accept that moral relativity may not be the subject here, and the title may be somewhat misleading.
And moral relativity, despite being probably the most common moral standpoint as far as philosophy students are concerned, it being the most adhered to viewpoint in most universities and schools, many consider it a cop-out that allows for double standards.
ElizabethTower2 – Really?
There’s nothing wrong with being pedantic.
Ubiq- the idea that halacha says two different things to two different people is not necessarily true. One person views halacha legitimately one way another views it legitimately another way. Each one must follow what they see as objective truth. One is right and one is wrong yet eilu vaeilu. Pehaps it “seems funny” that we can have subjective views about objective truths in your subjective view. Objectively speaking though I don’t know what “seems” or even “funny” is…
I have not read the replies yet, only the topic. Morality absolutely IS relative. TORAH morality is not, however, and is absolute and for all time. Once upon a time it was considered immoral for two men to be a couple. Now, given the relative morality of the times, there are people who believe it is immoral for them to NOT be allowed to be a married couple.
Only a Torah-observant Jew or Noachide-law observant non-Jew is empirically (did I use that correctly?) moral. Everyone else does what they THINK is morally correct, subject to the times in which they live, and of course what one person thinks is correct, ain’t necessarily so.
Morality absolutely IS relative. TORAH morality is not, however, and is absolute and for all time.
And this, my friends, sums up the entire question in 16 words. Thanks oomis!
So you consider it moral because the world thinks so?
Oomis described it well. And she demonstrated that what the world at large considers to be moral and how they define morality, is irrelevant to Jews and the Torah world.
No, Oomis has got it right. Your mistake is that you are using the term “relative” in two very different ways.
(or insert a better term) Subject to machlokes. It’s still absolute, it’s just a machlokes what the absolute truth is. I know you’re going to ask from eilu v’eilu, and the answer will depend on how to understand eilu v’eilu.
Regardless, it’s still completely different from “morality” changing with the times and societal whims.
“Regardless, it’s still completely different from “morality” changing with the times and societal whims. “
Granted. I did not mean to imply anything different.
Then you shouldn’t be arguing with Oomis.
So regarding morality, much like halacha youd say eilu veilu?
Yes, but what that means depends on how to understand eilu v’eilu.
Not incorrect; perhaps incomplete.
I don’t think eilu v’eilu precludes there being an ultimate emes which is in conflict with one or more of the positions. It refers to the process; if two chachomim explore a halachah, and all of the steps are legitimate, Torah based sevaros, the results of the two psakim may be different, because there might have been a conflict between two legitimate sevaros, and each resolved it differently.
Lo bashomayim hi, so we are only held accountable to follow the opinion which has greater weight (yochid v’rabbim, etc.). There is still an ultimate emes; klapei shmaya galya which opinion is correct (perhaps even a third unstated one).
I’ll give a (perhaps imperfect) example. Say a bais din paskens that someone is chayav misah based on two eidim, or a rov, etc. Turns out that the eidim lied, or the metzius was with the miut.
Was putting him to death assur? Klapei shmaya galya that it was, but they were still correct to do it.
I would say the same thing using the word moral. Killing an innocent person is inherently immoral, but they did the right thing.
Same with psak. Say klapei shmaya galya that the Tzitz Eliezer was wrong, but a talmid who is a doctor follows him. Klapei shmaya, what he did was assur and immoral, but after 120, he will get schar for a mitzvah.
My understanding of eilu v’eilu is based on Rashi in Kesubos, and other sources which I can’t pinpoint. It may be in conflict with other opinions on it.
A loosely related question:
Is it possible for an action to be potentially defensible on halachic grounds, yet still immoral?
Is it possible for an action to be potentially defensible on halachic grounds, yet still immoral?
What does immoral or moral mean?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.