- This topic has 250 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
But why is there something wrong with not having the proper feeling.
Because Hashem created a world in which it is inherently proper, and created us with some of that feeling, and with the feeling (and instruction through Chaza”l) that the feeling should be enhanced and cultivated.
It does look like you have two separate issues in mind but are mixing and matching them. The first is that seemingly, a person would not do anything without a self serving purpose. The second is that even if you would, what purpose is there to Avodas Hashem if not for ????? ?? ?????? Divide and conquer.
Shafal Ve’azil Hai Avza Ve’einei Metaifi.
Chochmoh bagoyim taamin, torah bagoyim al taamin.
“I would save him. But that doesn’t explain why it has to be done.”
Because to watch someone drown when one is fully CAPABLE of saving him (and only if one is really IS capable, as we have no chiyuv to drown ourselves in order to save a drowning victim), would make one into a worthless, unfeeling, waste of a human being. It makes us better people when we do good things for others, as well as for ourselves.
“When you arrange things for someone you love, while assuming they will never become aware of what you’ve done, what is your motivation?”
The knowledge that I have done something really nice for someone and made that person’s day, is my motivation. Otherwise I am merely a self-absorbed slob.
“Would you love someone if you got absolutely nothing out of the relationship.”
I take issue with the phrase “get nothing out of the relationship.” Just by loving someone, you are getting a great deal out of the relationship. Aside from the physiological benefits to loving, the endorphins that are released, etc. it gelps us to grow emotionally and learn to be empathetic. Have I loved someone without having that love returned? Oh boy, yes! I have had feelings for one or two guys before I met my husband, who did not return my feelings. In fact, one of them never knew how I felt, as I never let on. But even when I “got nothing” out of the relationship – I got a great deal out of the relationship. I matured, I learned how to deal with rejection and unrequited feelings. I learned how to move on, after sadly coming to the realization that the relationship would go nowhere.
In life, there are lessons to be learned from EVERYTHING, even the most mundane of things (that’s possibly a reason among many reasons, why we make brachas on the mundane, along with the more obviously important aspects of life). So if all we learn is that there might be times that we emotionally invest oruselves in someone and do not get anything back in return, that LESSON is what we have gotten out of the relationship. it helps us to be less self-centered and to grow up, and to recognize that sometimes we need to move on.
Oomis I love how you so beautifully and articulately put ideas. And so simply and clearly that you wonder why everyone’s arguing here on and on..,
Patur Aval Assur,
My question on that is that it makes it that ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? is not in fact loftier than ?? ??? ???? ???; it’s just a different form of reward that you’re seeking.
I disagree. Suppose Billy works hard at school because his parents will pay him $10 for each “A” that he gets on his report card, and Bobby works hard at school because he wants to get into a good college and get a good job. Both are motivated by “reward”, but I would argue that Bobby’s motive is loftier. Also, from Billy’s more immature perspective, he might not even view Bobby’s goals as a reward at all.
The other way of explaining it is that (even if) there is absolutely nothing to be gained, there is an intrinsic value in doing Hashem’s will. To that I asked why.
Let’s try this route: Because we believe that G-d is not capricious and would not ask us to do things that have no real benefit. Therefore, even if we personally can see no benefit of a mitzvah, we believe that it is beneficial simply because G-d told us to do it. So at the end of the day, given absolutely no benefits for doing something G-d asked him/her to do, besides even the benefit of a relationship with Hashem, a person would do it anyway because s/he believes there is an unknown benefit to it.
Patur Aval Assur,
It’s not loftier in the sense that either way you are really doing it for your own benefit.
This supposed “conundrum” has been answered numerous times in this thread. The difficulty only arises because you are creating an artificial catch-22.
You ask why a person would have any motivation to do something that G-d asks of him/her if it has no personal benefit to him. The only solution you’ll accept to this question is to come up with such a scenario and demonstrate why a person would do it. This is impossible, however, because you have broadened the definition of personal benefit so much that there is no such thing as a scenario where G-d asks something of someone and it has no personal benefit for that person. Therefore, you say, “aha! He’s doing it for the personal benefit! My question stands!”
I think your question is a fallacy designed to be a trap rather than a reflection of reality, and I think that what the sages are saying, that it’s better for our relationship with Hashem to motivate us to perform mitzvos than expectations of rewards, makes perfect sense.
Although my two approaches are not that of Avram, what he is saying is that it is not a ???. Doing for the sake of elevating yourself along with the universe is far from doing it because you will be getting paid. You will be doing it for the same reason it was given.
So, in this approach the Mishna is not saying to do without a cause. It is saying to do without ‘payment.’
???? ?????, PAA!
My clarity of thought is unfortunately not of supreme quality that I can come up with my own ???? and stick to it; I just have confused thoughts floating around somewhere up there. So disclaimer: I reserve the right to be ???? from anything I write in this thread.
“Moral fibre” – the capacity to do what is Right in face of any circumstances seems somewhat illogical at the first glance. As the Mishna in Ovois rightly states, some form of Order must be kept for the continuity of the world. But in a world which runs smoothly, why would one keep to his morals and not do what is perceived as wrong if not for fear of retribution? If I wouldn’t believe in Hashem [?”? etc], and I was in a store and had an opportunity to steal without being caught, what would stop me doing it?
However, if you give it a little more thought, there is more to the idea of morals than what meets the eye. No man, religious or not, would stand up and say that he feels no guilt to kill a person. If you had the opportunity to stab in the back a person who was getting on your nerves, without the fear of being caught, would you do it? Nobody sane will admit to feeling it correct.
Meaning, every person has some form of an innate sense of Right and Wrong. Again, logically it makes no sense that I feel more bad to kill somebody than I do to eat grapes, but I do.
Once the establishment of a moral code of ethics exists, by definition one is accountable for that. Of course, there is nothing compelling you to or holding you up to your morals [for one who doesn’t believe in any form of -theism], but having morals as an automatic ?????. I think that makes sense. Unless somebody could justify himself that he actually has no sense of moral justice [read: Insanity], the very fact that he feels its wrong is a reason not to do it.
This doesn’t directly answer your question, but I believe the two are very much connected. Somebody with a perfect set of principles will feel a strong desire to do what is Right simply because it is Right.
The yesoid is – morals are not a logical obligation, they exist whether you like them or not.
No. I don’t [(think I)] mean that at all. There is a reason why some things make you feel guilty and others don’t. That comes a couple of stages before the guilt. The mere sensitivity against killing people is a universal principle. I believe that is called a Moral Sense.
I think the guilt is a consequence of moral correctness. Guilt plays no role here, as far as I understand it.
Patur Aval Assur,
I’ll try to take another stab at this discussion without tying myself up in rhetorical knots like last time.
Would you do something if you received no benefit whatsoever?
I don’t think this is possible. The definition of an action (doing) is something that causes a change – and any change is either beneficial, harmful, or both.
Benefit includes physical reward, getting a good feeling, earning schar, etc.
I think there is an error in this premise that is at fault for creating what may be an artificial conundrum. You seem to assume that ??? encompasses all benefit, and that actions for the sake of ??? are separate from actions for benefit. I do not think Chazal intended those definitions.
I think ??? is a benefit that is not ???. Why is ??? a benefit? Because it reveals our purpose. Why does our purpose have value? Because we are hardwired to desire our purpose.
HaLeiVi,
A belated thank you for your post above – you explained the position I was arguing much more clearly than I was explaining it myself.
I am willing to argue that there is no inherent moral correctness
I believe that is kefirah.
Guilt is totally besides the point. Whether there is or not an innate moral correctness – we can debate. (Daasyochid calls it Kefira, although i’m not sure why) What I was trying to suggest that if #1 – the existence of a moral sensitivity – then #2 follows. The very fact that it is wrong is a reason not to do it. The only reason why you think not is because you are denying the existence of such morals. I believe that is where our dispute lies.
A toddler sees no benefit in sharing a toy whatsoever, because he wants to have the toy and by sharing, he doesn’t have the toy.
An older child begins to see that sharing is valued by his parent. He’ll share his toy because he’ll get praised or rewarded by his parent. This is doing something for the sake of a reward. Some people’s religiosity is in this mode.
The older child may also begin to see the benefit in sharing because it opens the possibilities of trade: if I share my toy that he wants, he’ll share his toy that I want. This is also doing something for the sake of reward, and is the underpinnings of secular “morality”.
An even older child begins to develop empathy: I will share my toy because it will make him feel good (bein adam l’chaveiro), or it will bring closeness with my parent who values sharing (bein adam l’Makom), and that makes me feel good too. I think this begins to transcend doing something for the sake of reward, but I can understand your argument that it does not. Fine.
A wise child realizes that he wasn’t put on Earth to have toys. He was put on Earth to fulfill a purpose. He learns about his purpose, and sees that sharing is part of this purpose. He shares to fulfill his purpose. I think this is a pure form of not doing for the sake of a reward at all, because even if the child ultimately feels good because of acting in this way, it is only because he aligned his feelings with his purpose.
I think it’s kefirah because I don’t think it’s possible to believe in the Ribono Shel Olam and His Torah without believing that there is inherent right and wrong. I don’t accept the possibility that all Taryag mitzvos are random.
Patur Aval Assur,
Your last paragraph is essentially saying that the value of ??? is that by the very nature of our hardwiring we feel good when doing ???.
Nope, not what I’m saying. Just because we are hardwired to desire our purpose does not mean that we would feel good fulfilling it. We would have to work on ourselves to align our feelings with our purpose in order to feel good. We would also have to learn what our purpose was.
So I guess Patur Aval Assur’s question could be asked about my example of children sharing in this manner:
If both lead to sharing at the end, why is the wise child who does it because it is his purpose any better than the child who does it because his mommy will praise him?
I can think of two possible answers:
1. Reaching the point where we are doing things because it’s our purpose is itself part of our purpose. So even if we’re doing things that we are purposed to do but we have different reasons for doing so, we’re not 100% fulfilling our purpose.
2. Chazal were concerned that fulfilling our purpose for any other reason presented a risk of being led astray. It allows for our yetzer haras to begin rationalizing away at our reasons. Therefore, the reason for ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? is one of safety.
PAA is going to ask you what motivates you to fulfill your purpose, if not good feeling or reward?
My previous post was submitted before PAAs was approved. Oh well.
DaasYochid – I just realised that I was talking about something very different to you. You were talking about an inherent Right and Wrong, I was discussing an innate sensitivity to which is what. I am currently not sure what PAAs position is – whether he holds nothing is essentially Right (like you understood) or that you don’t have an innate reasoning to determine what is Right and what is Wrong.
You hold the mitzvos aren’t random. Are you saying they are essentially Right even without the Mitzvos? If HKB”H wouldn’t have told us to shake Lulav, would it still be the ‘right thing to do’? Or is it only Right as a consequence of the commandment? (I haven’t got time to discuss my view, but I’d like to know what you meant)
PAA, define morality.
Some if the things mentioned in this thread, which are commonly associated with morals, such as killing and stealing, are certainly found in the Torah and are inherently correct.
Patur Aval Assur,
if there was no good feeling in fulfilling your purpose, why would you want to fulfill your purpose?
The strange thing about humans is that we can make ourselves feel good about pretty much anything. An extreme example is the terrorist, who feels good about killing himself and others. I think the most important thing is aligning motivation with ???, and the good feelings are up to us.
PAA – I think what I said makes sense, although I am not totally sure (dangerous…). Let me try bring out the point.
Imagine a murderer taken in for questioning, and is asked why he did it.
CONVICT: “Because I didn’t like his face.”
JUDGE: “Is that a justification to kill?”
CONVICT: “I didn’t say that, sir. I explained my motive. As far as justification is concerned, why shouldn’t I have killed him?”
JUDGE: “Because… because it’s just wrong!”
CONVICT: “So?”
JUDGE: “….”
How would you respond if you were the Judge?
JUDGE 1: “Well, you should want the good feeling of fulfilling your destiny and purpose in this world. Oh, you prefer to kill him? Oh well… I guess there’s nothing I can say about that…”
OR
JUDGE 2 {spluttering}: “What do you mean, ‘so’ – it’s wrong, perverse, disgusting… It’s IMMORAL!”
How would you react to such a guy?
I think it’s poshut that by definition, the very understanding that something is WRONG is a reason not to do it, and is an obligation to that effect.
Do you get me?
If I don’t “sense” that killing is wrong, and/or I can’t explain why it is wrong, it is still wrong.
If I don’t “sense” that killing is wrong, and/or I can’t explain why it is wrong, it is still wrong.
Counterargument: Amalek, and Zhids.
PAA: There is your sense of right and wrong (morality), and then there is absolute right and wrong (the RBSO). They will not be the same; at times even the Malachim didn’t believe Hashem was in the right (e.g. the Asarah Harugei Malchus).
Patur Aval Assur,
What is the value of aligning motivation with ??? if not the good feeling?
This is the fundamental question of humanity, the one that Chava grappled with right after her encounter with the snake.
Assuming we care about our lives, a basic reason to seek deeper purpose is longer term benefit. We have bigger brains, so we can predict further into the future than animals can. Getting a vaccine hurts, which is not a good short term feeling, and small children have to be held down to get a shot, but we adults understand it may protect us from diseases down the road, and most of us would willingly go to the doctor for the shot. For Chava, her conundrum was that eating from the tree would sure taste good and give her a lot of knowledge, but then she’d die (or maybe not, said her rationalizations).
As human beings, while we find avoiding death to be more desirable than ephemeral pleasure, I don’t think we’d be satisfied with just that. We’re not here to just eat and avoid getting eaten for as long as we can. So we seek greater purpose. I am Jewish so I believe that we have a Creator Who has an intended purpose for us and directs us to it via the Torah. What we learn about our purpose, however, may conflict with our existing notions of what makes us feel good, and we then arrive at that same primeval question Chava faced once again.
So it seems that the good feeling is based on the person’s own understanding of his purpose. The terrorist thinks his purpose is to kill people and he feels good; the good samaritan thinks his purpose is to help people and he feels good. At the end of the day what is the difference between them?
Now we’re hitting a fundamental question of humanity post tree. Once upon a time we could clearly see our purpose. Now our desire to feel good beats so loudly within us that we can follow it instead of our true purpose, making up false purposes along the way and convincing ourselves that they’re right in order to shush our existential discontent. Instead of the driver leading the horse, the horse goes where it wants and the driver convinces himself that that is where he’s supposed to be.
PAA, no, I’m saying that my understanding that it’s right or wrong does not determines it.
Gavra, lost you there. If anything, Amalek proves my point.
DY, I’m agreeing with you. It really doesn’t make a difference whether I think wiping out Amalek is right or wrong. On the other side, Europeans for over 1000 years thought killing Zhids was “right”.
It’s almost Shabbos in London, so I haven’t got much time here.
If you understood my last post the way I intended it (I haven’t read your response well enough to work it out for myself), and you still had a question, it boils down to one response:
From a logical viewpoint, there should be nothing. You are right, and you are fighting as a rationalist, and therefore you will be able to have the last word in any intellectual discussion over here. Which is why I agreed with you in the last round.
Your mistake, however, is that you don’t understand what morals are, and therefore you don’t understand how it is that it could be a ?????. Morals shouldn’t exist, but do. HKB”H placed a ‘mental blockage’ in most humans with an innate sense of Right and Wrong. What wrong means is irrelevant; you know beyond a doubt that it is wrong. That alone – understandable or not – is enough to make you accountable. I believe it is this last paragraph which is the essential argument between you and me. Are you with me?
I guess the word counterargument threw me off.
DY – Killing is not always “wrong”. As I’ve brought many times in the past, killing Alois Schicklgruber in 1840 at age 3 would have been a positive. Does that make it moral? Is it right? Perhaps.
I think your point is that “morality” is only in the eyes of the beholder, and to that I agree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.