Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

Home Forums Controversial Topics Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 251 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1090278
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    As far as I can tell, everything in all of your posts always comes down to a human being seeking the best pleasure. I have no problem with that. My problem is that you cannot simultaneously say that you are doing it because it is inherently right, because the only reason you are doing what is inherently right is that it gives you an even loftier pleasure.

    Also, I don’t see how you addressed my point from the terrorist – at the end of the day (according to how you said the example) the terrorist and the good-deed-doer both fulfilled what they thought was there purpose and they both achieved that loftiest of feelings which one gets upon realizing that he fulfilled his purpose.

    #1090279
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Gavra:

    When you say “absolute right and wrong (the RBSO)” I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that because the RBSO commanded it it becomes right, then there is no real meaning to right and wrong; it is simply God’s will. If you mean that there is an external force determining right and wrong and God can only command something which fits into the category of “right” as determined by the external force, then you haven’t at all explained why it is right (and you would be venturing in the direction which I brought the Rashba for).

    #1090280
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    So if you can’t define right/wrong, nor explain what makes something right/wrong, then claiming that something is right/wrong is meaningless. I assume you are claiming that something is right/wrong based on the fact that Hashem either commanded it or forbade it. But I don’t see why you have to equate God’s will with right/wrong. Unless, like my second pshat in Gavra’s statement, you are saying that there is an external force that is forcing God’s commands.

    #1090281
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    yekke2:

    Why are you equating mental blockage with right and wrong?

    #1090282
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    BSD:

    Patur Aval Assur – I don’t really mean either (maybe the first), and don’t understand how the second isn’t Kefirah.

    If the RBSO created the world (given) and it has a purpose, “Right” would be moving towards that purpose. Being that the RBSO gave us a map how to get there, following it is inherently “Right”.

    Have a good Shabbos,

    G@W

    #1090283
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    In other words, option three: Hashem, and His ratzon, are inherent.

    #1090284
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    As far as I can tell, everything in all of your posts always comes down to a human being seeking the best pleasure.

    I would say ultimate benefit rather than pleasure, because the fact that something is the ultimate benefit remains independent of whether the person derives pleasure from doing it, even though the person will derive pleasure from it in the vast majority of cases.

    At risk of repeating the madness of the earlier parts of the thread, I think the prime example of someone doing something purely because it was the ultimate benefit (following Hashem’s command) and not because of any reward or pleasure taken from the act is Avraham Avinu at the akeida.

    Also, I don’t see how you addressed my point from the terrorist – at the end of the day (according to how you said the example) the terrorist and the good-deed-doer both fulfilled what they thought was there purpose and they both achieved that loftiest of feelings which one gets upon realizing that he fulfilled his purpose.

    I guess I’m not understanding your question. What bearing does the fact that a person can get a twisted idea of his ultimate purpose and take pleasure from the resultant twisted actions have to do with this discussion?

    #1090285
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Gavra:

    The reason why I didn’t directly accuse DaasYochid of kefira on the previous page is that one might make the argument that morality is the same as ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? in the Rashba. We never got to that point of the debate because then DaasYochid asked me to define morality, and if neither you nor he is advancing such a claim then we don’t need to have the debate at the present time. As for your next point, I would ask you what the value of following the RBSO’s map is. I.e. what’s the value of fulfilling your purpose?

    #1090286
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    You’ll have to explain what you mean by that.

    #1090287
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    In your first paragraph, what is the benefit if not the pleasure?

    In your second paragraph, you don’t explain what the benefit of following the command was.

    My point from the terrorist is that as long as you think you are fulfilling your purpose, you have the same “good feeling” regardless of whether you fulfilled your actual purpose. (This is based on your assumption that the terrorist feels good.)

    #1090288
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I don’t think we’re capable of understanding “why” something is Hashem’s ratzon (which to me, is the only “morality” which counts), any more than we can understand “why” He exists. His ratzon is somehow a reflection of Him, and He is muchrach. He exists because He exists, His ratzon is His ratzon because it’s His ratzon, and morality is moral because it’s moral.

    You keep on asking for another step of causation (“why”), but at some point it ends; it’s inherent – muchrach, and there’s no further step.

    #1090289
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    Not at all. I am not asking why it’s his ratzon. All I’m asking is why you should follow it. Actually I wasn’t even asking that. I was asking why you should do something just because it’s inherently right. But you could apply the same question to Hashem’s ratzon.

    #1090290
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    We’re a few steps past that. I am explaning why thing are inherently moral or immoral, not why we should or would do them (or not).

    I actually think you’re conflating those two questions. Why we should do something is different than why we would do something.

    We should do what’s right because that’s inherently good.

    We would do what’s right because we feel that we should, and feel good doing what’s right. This type of benefit, though is not the ??? referred to in ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.

    #1090291
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    You haven’t explained why you should do something because it’s inherently good.

    #1090292
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    That is correct.

    #1090293
    Chortkov
    Participant

    DY: We should do what’s right because that’s inherently good.

    We would do what’s right because we feel that we should, and feel good doing what’s right. This type of benefit, though is not the ??? referred to in ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.

    PAA: You haven’t explained why you should do something because it’s inherently good.

    PAA – This more or less boils down to my confusion in your position. Shouldn’t you be using DY’s second point to prove your point? That the only reason why a person would do what’s right is for ones personal benefit. NOT because ???? ???? ???. If you accept that one should, does that answer your original problem?

    PAA – I am not sure at which point you are arguing with me. Accepting my premise that there is such a thing as an innate sense of moral Right/Wrong (which is hardwired into our thinking as part of our psyche – the ultimate knowledge and perception of Right/Wrong), would one not be accountable by logical progression for performing an action that is morally categorized as Wrong?

    Better yet, tell me what you would say if you where the judge in my story above. How would you answer my murderer?

    #1090294
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    yekke2:

    First paragraph – What is the difference between “would” and “should”? Are you saying that someone wouldn’t do something without getting benefit, but he should do it without a benefit? But why should someone do something for no benefit? Unless you want to understand ???? ???? ??? differently (which you are perfectly entitled to do), the Rambam seems to be saying that someone should do something for no benefit, simply because it is the ???.

    Second paragraph – Why should that make you accountable? What obligates you to follow it?

    Third paragraph – I would say that he broke the law and has to face the law’s consequences. (At least in theory that’s what I would say. But perhaps it is possible that it would be better for the law if people assumed that there was an underlying moral ?????.)

    #1090295
    Chortkov
    Participant

    PAA – There are two distinctly different discussions here: “What a person should do” = his duty, his obligation, what is correct. When you talk about why a person would, you are searching for an incentive which motivates him to perform the action.

    Second Paragraph – I’m sorry, until you accept the truth of innate moral sensitivity, you cannot understand this.

    And – I was hoping we wouldn’t get to this. Do you honestly believe you would say that the only reason why you have a problem with him killing is because he broke the law? And if he managed to pay a top notch lawyer to find him a legal loophole, then you don’t see any reason for him not to kill?! I’m afraid I don’t believe that.

    I honestly can’t explain myself more than what I did already. I’ll try think about it from a different angle and present it again.

    #1090296
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    yekke2:

    Why is “why should a person do what is correct?” not as valid a question as “why would a person do what is correct?”?

    I already said that my question is even if there is an innate sense of morals. Why should you follow it other than for the benefit you accrue by following it?

    On an emotional level I probably would find it repugnant but something being repugnant to me is not a mechayev.

    #1090297
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    In your first paragraph, what is the benefit if not the pleasure?

    A person may not know what the benefit of his action is.

    In your second paragraph, you don’t explain what the benefit of following the command was.

    That’s right! There was no apparent benefit to him whatsoever. Hashem had already promised everything to Avraham that he could have possibly wanted, specifically through Yitzchak, but then Hashem requested him (??? ???) to bring Yizchak as an offering. Avraham did it simply because Hashem asked him to, because he believed that if Hashem asked it, there was benefit to it.

    My point from the terrorist is that as long as you think you are fulfilling your purpose, you have the same “good feeling” regardless of whether you fulfilled your actual purpose. (This is based on your assumption that the terrorist feels good.)

    So, what’s the question?

    #1090298
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    because he believed that if Hashem asked it, there was benefit to it.

    So you are saying that Avraham did it for a benefit. Which means you are agreeing with me. The Rambam says:

    ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?’ ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????

    The simple meaning is that Avraham (and the ideal for everyone to strive for) did it for no benefit whatsoever. My question is that there is no reason to do something if not for some benefit. Now if you want to interpret the Rambam differently, and say that he’s not talking about ethereal benefits, that’s fine. But then you are acknowledging that you wouldn’t do something if there was no benefit whatsoever.

    #1090299
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So, what’s the question?

    That even within your system where the ultimate benefit is the good feeling of fulfilling your purpose, a good person is no better off than a terrorist.

    #1090300
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    By the way, the nafka mina of my pain point is that (if you grant it then) there is no reason to pedestalize altruism, nobility, morality, etc. because those people who we view as “better” are not actually better; they are just in pursuing a better benefit.

    #1090301
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Just for the record:

    Today I was in a situation where according to me I would have gotten no benefit for doing the “right” thing, and in I would have lost out, and I did the “right” thing just because it was “right”. So perhaps I’m a hypocrite.

    #1090302
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Actually, I retract my last post. I probably did it because it felt good to do the right thing.

    #1090303
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    So you are saying that Avraham did it for a benefit. Which means you are agreeing with me.

    Not exactly. Avraham Aveinu saw no benefits to the akeida. He was already promised everything he wanted, and Hashem now was asking him to give up the vehicle of that promise. And this wasn’t something like sacrificing Yitzchak to save someone else, or stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth, or even to make a public kiddush Hashem (they were alone on the mountain) or anything else where a benefit could be derived, either for himself or anyone else. All Avraham knew was that Hashem had asked him to do this. Avraham trusted in Hashem – that he wasn’t capricious.

    How is that the same as doing something for a benefit?

    That even within your system where the ultimate benefit is the good feeling of fulfilling your purpose, a good person is no better off than a terrorist.

    I think you do not understand my “system”.

    Hashem created a dynamic universe that is affected by action. He created two categories to describe the effects of any action: good and bad. He created human beings who have the power to consciously choose what actions to take. He also created for humans a two-category system that parallels his good and bad categories: truth and falsehood. He created within human beings an innate sense of responsibility to seek the truth and reject falsehood – that is why Adam and Chava were accountable for their choice in the garden. Adam and Chava ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, and therefore ingested their own system of good and bad that is fundamentally independent from the system of truth and falsehood and Hashem’s good and bad. This muddied our ability to discern truth and falsehood, because we can confuse it with our own sense of good and bad. So our good feelings have nothing to do with whether an act is beneficial (true) or not. Whether we align our feelings with truth and falsehood is up to us, but it doesn’t change our responsibility.

    So why would/should we do what Hashem wants simply because it is the truth? Because that is how we were created. It shouldn’t even be a question, and only is because of the disalignment between our human sense of good and bad and Hashem’s.

    #1090304
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I don’t see how you are answering the question. Do you think that it makes sense to do something for absolutely no benefit whatsoever? If yes, then why? Saying that this is how we were created is irrelevant because you haven’t explained why we should be beholden to how we were created. If no, then you are agreeing with me.

    #1090305
    Chortkov
    Participant

    Avram in MD – I think you are working along the lines I was trying before I gave it up as a waste of time. We are designed to sense the difference between Good and Bad. Everybody has an innate sense of moral sense, and understands that moral integrity is the ‘right’ thing to do. PAA – you keep asking what Right means, and why we should care about it. Irrelevant. The fact that we have this chemical irregularity inside us distinguishing every action into either a ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ category, our sense is obligating us not to do it. The guilt one feels is not the ???? but a ???? to something which may not make sense logically, but exists.

    It is wrong. So don’t do it.

    #1090306
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    But what’s wrong with doing something wrong?

    Also, “[e]verybody has an innate sense of moral sense” is a bit of an oversimplification. Avram’s terrorist thinks that it is right to kill people. Now you might say that the terrorist’s indoctrinated beliefs are subverting his innate moral sense. But you could say the same thing about akeidas Yitzchak. So then you will have to say that God can command whatever he wants, even if it is against inherent morality. And then DaasYochid might tell you that you just said kefira.

    #1090307
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Actually, the tzivui of the akeidah was against inherent morality, which is one pshat in why it was such a big nisayon.

    #1090308

    In line with their religion,I think the Arabs are right for killing people. However, being that their religion makes them a life threatening danger to society ,I think we are right in killing them first.

    #1090309
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    So how come in http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/theological-conundrum-read-at-your-own-risk/page/3#post-562863 you tried to prove that there is inherent morality because if God gave us commandments they must conform to some inherent morality?

    #1090310
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    yayin:

    Are you saying that there is no inherent morality, or that there is but religion overrides it?

    #1090311
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    I don’t see how you are answering the question. Do you think that it makes sense to do something for absolutely no benefit whatsoever?

    I’ll restate my position as clearly as possible.

    1. Every action possible in the universe falls into one of two categories: benefit or harm.

    2. This is true whether or not we humans understand the benefit or harm of the action.

    3. We were created to know that we are responsible for acting beneficially, not harmfully. This is completely independent of whether we know what benefit or harm there is in an act.

    4. Your question restated in this framework is then: why should we refrain from overriding 3? That itself is an action. Therefore, the burden of proof is now on you. Why would you purposefully override your created state?

    If yes, then why?

    Why not?

    #1090312
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    So then you will have to say that God can command whatever he wants, even if it is against inherent morality. And then DaasYochid might tell you that you just said kefira.

    Absolutely G-d can command whatever He wants. The universe and morality are not independent of G-d, however, so to say that G-d goes against inherent morality makes no sense.

    #1090313
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    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.

    #1090314
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Is that really why you think – that everything’s merely a test, rather than having actual meaning? That kind if flies in the face of a lot of Chazal and most of Sefer Hachinuch, no?

    Also, have you addressed my chilluk between “should” and “would”?

    There has to be a point at which there’s no more “Why?”, otherwise, ein l’davar sof. I could just as easily ask you “Why should someone do something for his benefit?”, and there no real answer other than to rephrase the question.

    #1090315
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    First he asserts that there is always a benefit (even if unknown) which seems to agree with me,

    Yes, though you seem bent on reframing my broader definition of benefit to personal benefit.

    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;

    Ok, so why would you go against your purpose? 🙂

    only that there is nothing forcing you to follow it,

    Correct. That is the definition of free will.

    and therefore if for whatever reason you want to do something that is against your purpose, there should be no problem.

    How does that follow?

    #1090316
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    First of all, I did not express a position. I merely asked a question on the existing position(s). Second of all, the fact that it is a test doesn’t make it devoid of meaning – the test is whether you will obey the Divine will and the meaning is in obeying the Divine will. Or the test is a means of earning reward and the reward is the meaning. Third of all, why do you assume that something has to have meaning? There is no intrinsic Godly quality that demands omnibenevolence. Theoretically, an all-powerful God could just torture you all day and your life would have no meaning. Luckily for us, Hashem is nice and allows us to benefit. Fourth of all, you are equating “meaning in fulfilling a commandment” with “reason for the commandment”. If you want to give an example of a particular mitzvah which Chazal or the Sefer Hachinuch explain how it has meaning, we can discuss it.

    I think I did address the chiluk between WOULD and SHOULD by expressing the lack of hechrech for there to be a chiluk.

    As for your last paragraph, of course there has to be a point where you can no longer ask why. That point can be “pleasure”, “benefit”, “happiness”, or something of that sort. Any decision can come down to a cost-benefit analysis. You decide based on what is the most beneficial to you. I’m not saying that you have to pursue benefit, but you don’t need a separate reason to explain the pursuit of benefit.

    #1090317
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    Yes, though you seem bent on reframing my broader definition of benefit to personal benefit.

    I am reframing it because if it is not personal then there is no reason to do it.

    Ok, so why would you go against your purpose?

    Any number of reasons. E.g. you like money so you want to steal. Or you are jealous of someone so you want to kill him. Etc. Etc. Note that my point is not so much that there should be nothing stopping you from killing or stealing inasmuch as it is that you shouldn’t think that you’re a good person for giving up the stealing and killing, since you are only giving it up because you are getting something even better.

    How does that follow?

    If there is no reason why you should fulfill our purpose then it follows that there is no problem if you don’t fulfill it.

    #1090318
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    you don’t need a separate reason to explain the pursuit of benefit

    I can accept that. Can you accept that you don’t need a separate reason to do something other than that it is the proper thing to do? I can. I think HKB”H created us with the ability to reach a madreigah to do so. If you can’t accept that, then further debate won’t get us anywhere, and I’ll take you up on your kind offer to bow out.

    #1090319
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    The difference is that I am not asking you to accept that pursuit of benefit has any inherent value. You are asking me to accept that doing the proper thing has inherent value. I’m fine if we say that nothing has any value. In the absence of all value everyone can do whatever they want. Many people will desire benefit and perhaps many people will desire to do good. But then we must acknowledge that there is no real difference between the two people – each one of them is simply following their desire.

    And the offer wasn’t kind (emoticon).

    #1090320
    Chortkov
    Participant

    Wow. I didn’t really understand what “Read at your own risk” meant until just now.

    #1090321
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur, I guess you understand ??? ????? ??? ??? more literally than I do.

    #1090322
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????

    And I hope you realized from my parenthetical that my last sentence was a joke.

    #1090323
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    I am reframing it because if it is not personal then there is no reason to do it.

    Yes indeed, that is the axis of our disagreement.

    Any number of reasons. E.g. you like money so you want to steal. Or you are jealous of someone so you want to kill him. Etc. Etc.

    I would argue that the vast majority of people who do stuff like that do not A) Discover what their purpose in life is, and B) Consciously reject it.

    Note that my point is not so much that there should be nothing stopping you from killing or stealing inasmuch as it is that you shouldn’t think that you’re a good person for giving up the stealing and killing, since you are only giving it up because you are getting something even better.

    That’s balderdash (feel free to quote me on your report cards thread – emoticon).

    A person who’s anger flares up, but refrains from killing because he thinks it’s wrong through reciprocal “golden rule” reasoning is better than a person who refrains simply because he’s afraid of getting jailed or executed, even though both are refraining in order to “get something better.” Why? Because once the police are removed from the equation, the former person would kill, while the latter would continue to refrain. We could probably derive some circumstance which would remove the inhibition from the latter guy too. The point that our sages are trying to make is that the ideal for us is to elevate our reasoning to the point where nothing can remove the inhibition to sin. With an animal this is impossible, but Judaism posits that this is possible for human beings.

    At the end of the day, you are absolutely right in your reasoning … from the point of view of an animal. Animals are motivated purely by their perception of what is beneficial to them. Most humans are too, but we have the potential to elevate ourselves beyond this reasoning, because we were created b’tzelem Elokim, Who created the universe even though there was no “benefit” to Him. But it’s a waste of breath to try and explain this to an animal, because how could you describe colors to someone who was born completely blind? It would make no sense.

    #1090324
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    We could probably derive some circumstance which would remove the inhibition from the latter guy too.

    This is precisely my point. Even the latter guy is only refraining from killing because in the grand scheme of things it is better for him to refrain from killing. You say that he should refrain from killing even if there was no reason for him to refrain from killing. This is the impasse we have been at for some time now. I am saying that it doesn’t make sense to refrain from killing just for the sake of not killing, because there is no value in refraining from killing (other than any external effects it may have on you). You are saying either that there is value, or that even though there is no value one should still refrain from killing (I’m not sure which one you are saying). In order to convince me (and yes, I am open to being convinced) you would have to explain why someone should do something valueless, or else carefully delineate what the value is, which I feel you have not done as of yet.

    Thank you for the quotes.

    #1090325
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    You are saying either that there is value, or that even though there is no value one should still refrain from killing (I’m not sure which one you are saying).

    I’m saying there is value – although there is no guarantee that a human can see or understand that value.

    or else carefully delineate what the value is, which I feel you have not done as of yet.

    This is an unreasonable constraint, and is why I previously said that your conundrum was artificial.

    I agree with you that both human beings and animals would only want to do things that are valuable. The difference between them is that animals are capable of seeing an action as valuable only if they understand what the value is for them (your demand). This is why I keep relating your arguments to the animal perspective. Humans, on the other hand, do not have this constraint. Hashem can tell us that an act has value, and we can believe Him and do it, even if we have no understanding of what the value is.

    #1090326
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    I’m perfectly willing to accept that it is possible for something to have value even though we don’t know what the value is, and that we should trust Hashem that it has value. (This is assuming it has value to us. If not then there is no reason to do it.) So you are agreeing that the reason to do something is that it is valuable, as opposed to simply because it is the ???. So do you also agree to the point that follows from that, namely that someone who saves someone is no better than someone who kills someone, since they are both simply pursuing value?

    #1090327
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur,

    (This is assuming it has value to us. If not then there is no reason to do it.)

    Nope, I reject this parenthetical, because it contradicts what you were willing to accept above (that you don’t know what the value is).

    So you are agreeing that the reason to do something is that it is valuable, as opposed to simply because it is the ???.

    What is the ??? if not the ultimate value of an act?

    So do you also agree to the point that follows from that, namely that someone who saves someone is no better than someone who kills someone, since they are both simply pursuing value?

    No, because one value can be better or worse than another.

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 251 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.