It is commonly accepted that in order to believe in Shcar Ve'onesh you have to do just that, you have to 'believe'. It's commonly accepted that there is no rational basis for Schar Ve'onesh.
I beg to differ.
Wouldn't an atheist who is also a moral relativist tell his/her children to treat people well, to be honest in dealing with people, to even help people in need? Sure the reason the moral relativist guides his children in this direction is for their own selfish good, not because it is inherently moral, after all he's gotta live up to his name 'moral relativist'.
But this is precisely the point they find that their children will lead a better life and their society will be a better happier place to live and enjoy if we will act according to moral precepts. Hence we have an agreement from this moral relativist and atheist that the system of this world is such that it rewards for good deeds and punishes for bad.
נשלח ב-9/10/2005 05:36
To make the above simple,
Most moral relativists will claim that ethics are a social contract, I do good for you, you do good for me so in total we have a happier existence. Accordingly we can rightfully tell a community of people that if you will be ethical you will have a better existence. Now if these people are children I will use the language of their level, I will tell them that if they behave they will have more candy. If I am talking to primitive uneducated people I will tell them that if they will be ethical the produce will be bountiful etc. It will be true too, for by fighting between themselves or by not being fair to their neighbors they will not be productive, the more they will be unethical the more ravaged by wars and decimated by it and in turn losing more wars and so on.
The above holds true for ethic on an individual level as well. There is also the fact of the feeling of contentment and satisfaction that comes along with being ethical, disciplined to do the sensible in the long run rather than the fleeting advantage makes for a less conflicted existence.
So Schar Ve'Onesh is a fact after all
נשלח ב-12/10/2005 09:11
עני בפתח
I quite agree with you that the way the world runs does offer exmaples of the rule that good behavior gets good reward and vice versa.
however, this is only the begining of a possible and, in my opinion, an important discussion.
a. should not we define more carefully what is "good" in this context. It is sensible to assume that our intuitive understanding of these terms, like "good" and "bad", will suffice here. However, methodologically, it is necessary to check that or at least to refer to this.
b. the שכר ועונש that you describe are "ways of the world". They do not reflect necessarily a divine purpose or intervention, and this seems to be the main issue amongst religious people.
c. it is quite possible, of course, to claim that
1. this is a good example of the wisdom of creation in a system such as the Rambam's.
2. even according to other philosophies, this natural שכר ועונש may very well reflect divine planning. And this is my own belief.
However the theological picture will not be whole or maybe even relevant without the ontological assumptions which should be clarified, as I tried to do here.
תיקון הכיוון משמאל לימין...
תוקן על ידי - מיימוני - 12/10/2005 9:16:11
נשלח ב-12/10/2005 16:08
Maimoni, how nice to see you here, Welcome aboard.
As you pointed out, Good is meant in the ethical sense, now what exactly is the ethical good depends on the underlying reasoning for ethics in general which is discussed in an Eshkol here named ''Why be Ethical''.
My whole point is exactly that Schar Ve'Onesh does not need to be connected to belief in some kind of Divine being.
What I'm realizing more and more is that all the Principles of Faith can be maintained without the common concept of A Supernatural Divine God.
In the Eshkol ''What do we mean by God'', I think that Prince explains very well how the whole mystical supernatural belief about God is misplaced.
So we can maintain the concept of God (the correct one that is) and the concept of Schar Ve'Onesh without resorting to belief in some Mystical Divine God.
Sure it's possible to claim that it's Gods way of managing the world, but my whole point is to show that Schar V'onesh is not dependant on the Divine God hypothesis.
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 12/10/2005 16:09:25
נשלח ב-12/10/2005 16:15
There is a difference from the schar veonesh you describe and the religious version of schar veonesh. See the example you use of a father and child that's the religious version, if the father will forget to give his reward, the child will not be rewarded. Same is with religious schar veonesh its not the deed itself that's rewarding only when you do something that god wants he will reward you afterwards as he pleases, and in order to behave morally you have to believe that there is a divine being capable of rewarding you. The atheist and the way I understand you schar veonesh is, that the deed itself is rewarding, if you do the moral thing that itself is rewarding, your reward comes from the deed itself, you don't have conflict existence, your world would be a better place etc.
נשלח ב-12/10/2005 16:35
Shaom Aleichem Tzuriel,
I wouldn't really say that the deed itself is the reward (althought that may be part of the reward too, as I mentioned above that the feeling of contentment and inner peace that comes from being ethical is a reward in itself) I would say that it's the system of the world that good deeds brings reward.
As I just wrote to Maimoni, this is precisely my point , no need for a Mystical Divine Father figure doling out rewards.
I was prompted to make this whole point when I read a comment in some blog asking how we can honestly say Teshuva Tephila Utzdaka Mavirin Es Roa Hagziera? Do we really see the poplulation that do Teshuva having a better life with no bad Geziaras?
My response to that question is this whole point that even he will agree that being ethical [and that is what Teshuva, Tefila and obviously Tzedokah is all about) rewards one with a better life, a life with less bad Gezieros.
So in the end we can rightfully exclaim that Teshuva Tephila and Tzedakah Mavirin Es Roah Hagezeirah
נשלח ב-20/10/2005 02:59
The way I understand this question ''how we can honestly say Teshuva Tephila Utzdaka Mavirin Es Roa Hagziera?'' is, if you do thshuvah for not putting on tefilin every day or for putting the light on, on shabbos or eating kosher and all the transgressions that has nothing to do with ethics, as most of the taryag mitzvos have nothing to do with ethics, (and some are even in conflict with ethics) how does teshuvah help?
And even if we do understand that teshuvah and tzedakah could help what about tefhila?
If you look back at history at times when klal yisroel was very religious there was more geziros like the Middle Ages that is synonymous with Yiddish tzuros so the question arises ''how we can honestly say Teshuva Tephila Utzdaka Mavirin Es Roa Hagziera?''
Also what do you mean by ''I would say that it's the system of the world that a good deed brings reward".?
תוקן על ידי - tzuriel13 - 20/10/2005 3:09:09
נשלח ב-20/10/2005 19:49
Tzuriel,
Sure we have to understand all mitzvoth how they lead to the main goal of Ethics as Hillel said that the main goal of all mitzvoth is D'aloch Sani Le'chavroch Lo Tavod the rest is only commentary i.e. ways on how to get to and to live by this precept.
Tefila is about introspection, it's about understanding that we are all dependant on Existence for our every breath and that Existence has the final word on everything that happens to us. Once we humble ourselves to Existence we will not have inner our outer conflict, for we will have no delusionary expectations other than what the facts are and the guiding light of all our actions is according what we see sensible and rational, not according to our misconceived wants.
Jews in the middle ages.
I don't have clarity on this matter. Were non-Jewish serfs better off? Isn't it a fact that the majority of people lived a miserable existence (relative to ours) not only Jews. Yet I surely don't discount the chance that Jews were worse off which means that in certain instances (when in a society of evil people for example) it will be more convenient to join the crowd and not be ethical. So I still have to think about this one.
נשלח ב-20/10/2005 21:32
עני_בפתח,
Could you please explain how פרה אדומה & the kosher laws lead to ethics what do you mean ''we have to understand''
When we prey את צמח ,זכרינו לחיים or רפאינו how does that fit in your deion of tefila isn't that a want.
How could you compare Jews to serfs the Jews were observing gods laws and the serfs didn't besides the serfs were never expelled from anywhere or mass murdered.
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 07:57
עני_בפתח,
Correct me if I'm wrong. According to you the fact that humans want or
need social norms and laws point to the existence of שכר ועונש.
I beg to differ. Actually, the issues beg to differentiate themselves.
Social norms and laws are what you consider ethics or "social
contracts". Ethics are just another way of watching one's own back so
that life could be slightly more tolerable. This is the purpose of law
and order and also norms which are not written into law books and are
not punishable. If you use the bathroom in my house, I expect you to
flush. If you do not I will not call the police, neither will I be
able to punish you. However, if it happens often, if more and more
people decide to be so impolite my bathroom will be closed to friends
and family that happen to come to my house, and so will theirs to me.
I beg you thus to flush.
שכר ועונש the way I understand it is quite something else. A divine
being tells you what to do and will reward you if you listen to him,
but will send you to hell - literally, if you chose to disobey him. We
can compare it to a dictator who decrees you to kneel before him or
else… not an agreeable law at all. Some people think of some laws in
democracies as such too.
The point is that you cannot compare people willingly deciding on a
common practice as a social norm - even if it has no real meaning
(like a handshake, for example) - or other contracts that guards
properties and lives with a dictator's whim or divine laws.
What you can say is that שכר ועונש is a fact that people in third
world countries can testify to it's existence. It also is something
that I have instilled in my kids. Waking me up Shabbos afternoon = no
nosh.
If that is the case then I missed the point.
תוקן על ידי - hasid_emes - 23/10/2005 8:06:04
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:10
Hasid Emes, Welcome aboard,
I think you missed my point.
Let me pose it to you in a question format. Is it a simple true fact that if I, will do good deeds then I will be better off than if I'm an evil person?
If you answer is yes (which i assume it will be) then you have tacitly agreed that "Good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished.
My point is that you don't need any belief system to see that being ethical and moral will reward you.
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:21
Hasid,
You see, my above concept is actually part of my general contention that the main components in Judaism are not really beliefs, they are simple facts. Once we realize that the concept of God and Schar V'Onesh are evident facts then the whole of Judaism takes on new dimensions.
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:24
Thanks Oni.
I will rephrase it to ''some good deeds are rewarded and some bad deeds are punished''.
I am not about to divulge all my sins - sins against humanity in large and against certain individuals. However, rarely did I get punished. It is only when one finds out that punishment is probable. Should I count the red-lights I zoomed through? I got a ticket only once, and it was just a $50 mail-in fine - no points, Hurray!
But, if you ask people who know me they will consider me ethical (I hope). This means that I get all the benefits of being moral without being moral at all.
Then we have the issue of people who were never ethical and never moral but 'got away' with murder. For some reason Idi Amin comes up in my mind. Even Stalin died of natural causes.
תוקן על ידי - hasid_emes - 23/10/2005 8:24:46
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:29
Ok, so what would your advice be to you kids? Does it pay (in the overall picture) to be ethical? Or they'd be better off being mean to their friends stealing from their neighbors?
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:34
Better still, what would be your advice for society at large?
Should they live by rules of etihcal behaviour or not?
If your advice to them would be that they should go ahead and make ehtical rules, I would ask you to kindly explain why you would advise them so?
I contend that the reason you'd advise them so is because you agree that an ehical society has a better chance overall of being a happier society. Doesn't it mean that you're telling me that Ethics is rewarding?
נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:42
I teach my kids loads of crap.
The truth is that teaching them to be good is overall a good thing. You never know where you might get busted.
The reason why I never robbed a bank is probably more the fear of being caught then anything else. Morally I would be able to satisfy myself into thinking that they are FDIC insured. However, if I get a chance to steal a person's hard-earned money and knowing that nobody will ever find out, will I do it? I don't know. I like to think that I won't just because I like to think of myself as righteous. I do believe that many people will and that ultimately they will get punished, but that isn't necessarily the truth.
Overall, it pays to be ethical, but only because society will be a better one if they are. If everyone refrains from stealing then I will be never find myself locked out of my car – perhaps my wildest dream.
How do you compare it though to what we know about שכר ועונש? Something that is essentially am authority keeping tab on you for things you don't care much and for things that you do hidden in your bedroom?
