Reply To: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

Okay. The debate is starting to get confusing again. Probably because everyone arguing against me is saying different things. So first let me summarize what I think each person is saying.

DaasYochid

There is an inherent morality which in general cannot be separated from God’s commandments, for if it could be then the commandments would be random and meaningless which is unacceptable. However, God can, for the purpose of testing someone, command him to violate inherent morality.

yekke2

A person is born with an innate sense that classifies things as right or wrong. This proves that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and obligates us to follow it.

Avram in MD

There is always a benefit in doing the right thing, though we don’t necessarily know what it is. Furthermore, you have to have a reason why you would go against your created purpose. Additionally, there is no inherent morality; there is only God’s will which defines morality.

Patur Aval Assur

Even if there is an absolute “right” (which I am granting only for the sake of this argument) what obligates someone to follow it? If it is because of some benefit that a person will receive, then the reason to do it is not that it’s right, but that it’s beneficial. If the “right” can be completely divorced from any benefit then there remains no reason to do it.

I don’t see that DaasYochid answered this. Moreover I don’t understand his position ????? ???? – if the akeida can be a test, why can’t every mitzva be a test?

I don’t see that yekke2 answered my question either. He says that the fact that we have this innate sense is itself an obligation to do “right”. But the question is why that has to be.

I don’t see that Avram answered the question either. First he asserts that there is always a benefit (even if unknown) which seems to agree with me, but then he says that you need a reason to go against your purpose. However, I never suggested that you SHOULD go against your purpose; only that there is nothing forcing you to follow it, and therefore if for whatever reason you want to do something that is against your purpose, there should be no problem. Also, it would appear that DaasYochid would find Avram’s position on the relationship between Hashem and inherent morality to be unacceptable.

If I misrepresented anyone’s position feel free to correct me. Also, I am not trying to be facetious or annoying; I am just pointing out that I don’t think anyone actually addressed the question. If anyone does not want to continue the debate, feel free to drop out.