MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT: REFLECTIONS

kowalskil · February 24, 2016, 7:39pm

pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/spiritual.htm

Dan1 · February 26, 2016, 12:02am

Chapter 8: Right and Wrong Rules

The book I am reading [16] is loaded with topics of great importance. It begins with a question about God’s existence. The authors state that this question should be “confined to theologians and philosophers.” I tend to disagree. Responding to this question they write that obeying God’s commandments is more important than believing in God, because “Judaism emphasizes deed over creed.” Why does “emphasizing deed” make the “does-God-exist” question less important? Creed is the most important part in every religion. Am I wrong in thinking that those who believe in heaven and paradise are more likely than other people to obey God’s commandments?

And here is another question. Why should doubts about God’s existence be an obstacle to being a good Jew? The book answer is: “If we knew God existed and would punish us for evil acts, then good acts would be much less freely chosen. An element of unknowability about God is necessary so as to allow us to choose good. In order to choose good, we must feel free to do bad, and we would not feel this way if we had definite knowledge that God was present and recording our every action.” Once again I disagree; I think that a person believing in the biblical God is more likely than a nonbeliever to follow His moral principles. On the other hand, many atheists are moral, despite the fact that their morality is not based on God’s commandments.

According to a recently found webpage [17], there are two kinds of rules related to “right” and “wrong” conduct. They are called Ethics and Morals. The first “is provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion.” The second set of rules, by contrast, is internal, rather than external. “Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.” I was not aware of this linguistic distinction.

To illustrate the difference the author describes a defense attorney. “Her morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished. But her ethics as a professional lawyer require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities, even when she knows that the client is guilty.” Who decided that in a conflicting situation of that kind a lawyer should follow prevailing rules of ethics rather than rules of internal (subjective) morality? How was this decision justified?

Here is one answer, found on a different website: “Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The same greater-good answer is probably given to soldiers when they are ordered to annihilate enemies, to those who interrogate prisoners, to medical doctors, etc., etc. All rules of conduct are probably flexible.

Browsing the Internet I found many arbitrary descriptions of differences between the words morality and ethics. This is disappointing. For the time being I will accept the first description–morals are internal, ethics are external. It might be useful in the context of the above mentioned situations.

Knowing that police exist doesn’t ruin our agency.
Knowing a God also does not ruin our agency.
If I was God I’d sure as hell try to fix things up.

How can we be rewarded only once we are dead?

It’s just a big scam that God didn’t stop from happening.

The_Eternal_Warrior · February 26, 2016, 12:09am

Or couldn’t. Or wouldn’t.

What do you know of spiritual mirrors?

Ierrellus · February 26, 2016, 2:08pm

K., you want us to read an entire book? Why can’t you summarize your ideas here?