Judaism and Morality - Letter Exchange
I have been thinking a lot about various issues of morality and I wish to send to you some of my thoughts. I've sent these to some other people, but I suspect that you, in particular, might have thoughts about such issues. In any event, here's what I've been thinking:
I wonder about the value of commandments or other precepts. When does the fulfillment of a commandment or precept merit fulfillment? For example, the deal with adultery or stealing. It's easy to not steal if the police are around. But what if there are no police and the car is sitting there with the keys in the ignition? It's said that every person has a breaking point. But it is exactly at that breaking point that the VALUE of not falling temptation to a deed acquires worth! Follow this: The Torah says don't commit adultery. Not hard to fulfill if the gal who invites you to bed is unattractive. If one refuses her offer, then is one being "moral"? I think not. But what if it's Ms. X, after whom one has lusted for ages? Isn't it exactly THEN that the force of the commandment attains fruition? (There are many other possible examples that involve other commandments, of course.)
By which I mean: Moral responsibility is dependent upon free will. If one has a genuinely good will and ALWAYS chooses the good, then one is "merely" – no: MERELY – BEING oneself. There's no question of morality involved at all. (Look: Does G-d act morally? He's got a perfectly good will, anything He chooses is inherently good – so is G-d morally good? There's no CHOICE! He NECESSARILY does the "good thing.") But what about normal folks? It seems to me that the POSSIBILITY of genuinely moral action exists only when one might choose the immoral alternative. If the moral alternative is entirely consistent with one's (potentially immoral) behavior, then there's really no CHOICE. "I didn't steal the car because it was entirely natural that I wouldn't have stolen it." THAT isn't moral – it's just a natural action. In other words: Morality itself exists ONLY when one chooses the immoral action; until then, one is simply doing what one does naturally or as a matter of course. (I am here assuming, perhaps fallaciously, that the commission of a morally prescribed action proceeds from a good will and is THEREFORE not, strictly speaking, moral, but rather an expression of a given behavioral disposition. This might be a circular argument on my part. "Three cheers for Garmer's intellectual integrity!")
What I MEAN ("get to your point!") is this: Morality is an issue when the TENSION reaches the breaking point. Nay, morality is an issue only when the breaking point has been reached and BROKEN. So the question arises, "What's your breaking point?" By such a standard of morality, any being AT ALL capable of making a moral choice (i.e., a FREE choice) is inherently doomed to immorality. By such a standard, "to err is human." And, therefore, to be human is to be immoral. (This is starting to sound a bit like Christian teaching, I fear, i.e., the idea of original sin and the inherent "damned-ness" of every human. The need for divine grace and all that.)
Lemme summarize: The possibility of moral action exists only when one is truly tested. Yet, in order for morality to pertain at all, one needs to FAIL to test. Exactly at the point when one SHOULD choose the moral action, one chooses the immoral action. After all, THAT is exactly the DEFINITION of morality!
Ergo: A moral ACTION is amoral (NOT immoral).
PLEASE critique this. It's one of the massive questions that I've been battering around my head for a long time. I need other, especially opposing, views.
 |
|
|
