Morality: Who Needs God?

Appreciated the article, makes a lot of sense

I don't believe that there are moral absolutes. I think that even if they exist, this is totally irrelevant in a practical sense. Regardless of moral absolutes exist or not, the really important question is this: what are they? To date, no advocate of absolute morality could satisfactorily answer this question. There are a few possibilities: 1) One may declare that he knows certain value is absolute, that it has been "revealed" to him. But can we trust him? 2) It can be said that what is right is forever established in an holy book of choice. Then, we have the same problem as before and one more: this moral absolutist is likely guilty of hypocrisy, given that all important holy books we know contain moral absurdities so obvious that any reasonable person living today will refuse to follow. 3) He can say that these absolutes are "out there", waiting to be discovered. This leaves us in the exact position we're in, everyone. So, the real problem is this: are you willing to concede that what you think is right, may be wrong? Can we collectively improve our moral values?

I think morality is not absolute, but can be objective, meaning that there can be a consensus over what is right and wrong. Also, this state of affairs is not what moral relativists desire the world to be, but what they think the world IS. So, it don't matter if we like it or not, because reality is not negotiable.

As an aside, I think history shows that moral absolutists are more likely to be guilty of not being interested in learning and of sticking to their values even when the vast majority think they are wrong. Think of the religious South position on slavery. The conflicts between science and religion that persists even today also demonstrate this point clearly.

I must commend you for your heroic defense of belief in God and His connection to morality.

You've nailed this one perfectly. I often ask of relativists about the Nuremberg trials. Since the defendants argued that they were merely following the lawful orders of their state they can't be guilty of a crime (aka relative moralism). Yet we held them to a higher standard (aka absolute moralism) and they were rightfully found guilty. This is a classic example of recognizing that their is in fact an absolute standard of right/wrong.

great article. tks!

I think you have ignored the real wellspring of morals. It is not the individual, or God, who invented morality. Morality is a product of the dynamic created when an individual joins a group. If humanity is just an unconnected population of individuals, your argument would be more valid, but early humans recognized the survival value of strong, coherent groups and developed morals to bind the individual to the group, and, as a result, improve their chances of survival. As societies became more complex, gods were invented to sacralize the rules and give another dimension of legitimacy to the morality of the group. Read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" for a more detailed explanation of the survival benefits of morality.

what if that logic leads to socialism n even communism? logically truth has nothing to do with society. it's objective, independent from men.

My grand parents, born around 1900, said morality came from God, mores were rules developed by a community for acceptable behavior, and ethics were a code of conduct develped by an employeer for the employees. Webster Agreed back then. Now many consider ethics and morality to be the same thing. They are wrong. Ethics are secular, morality is of divine origin. Moral outrage today has nothing to do with morality, rather it is a function of mob mentality by those who believe they are politically correct.

The easiest way for me to understand Absolute Morality was from an argument posed by the Christian Theologian C.S. Lewis. He said (paraphrased) "When you measure the goodness of a society compared to a previous society, such as America to Ancient Rome, you are invoking a third element or an absolute morality. The only way to compare the two is to see which one is closer to an intuitive absolute idea of right living and then measure who is closer to it. We don't know the name of this absolute but we intuitively know it exists. How could you argue that we are moving in the right direction or the wrong without this principle?" Of course, he called it God and I believe the Jews have as well.

The problem lies in perception, not in morality. The ruler is love, and everything has to be measure by that ruler, because the ruler is the king(God), that's why kings are rulers. For example, the author of this article gave an example of someone having sex with a 12 year old, and most people would perceive this as evil and disgusting, but the act is not what is evil, the sex is not what is evil, the evil is in that that child is somebodies child, the evil is in not only what you doing to the child, but what you are doing to their parents. If you had a culture in which the parents would agree with sex acts between their children and other adults, then there would be no evil. It's all in the perception of the culture. Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I have been thinking about this myself since I read of a Western woman in Thailand noticing her students cheating on exams to help weaker students make it. This made her wonder what was right and wrong. But I think your example was not well chosen, as objectively the child usually suffers from a too early sex act even where society sanctions it, as child brides in Afghanistan or Yemen or Saudi Arabia, for example. There is no shame and it is considered good, but the children suffer anyway. I thought of polygamy, but it badly undermines society, as explained by women who grew up in this system. Being gay-maybe, I haven't made up my mind. But the point is, many acts that societies somewhere sanction ARE objectively harmful, not just because they are considered bad by others. If they decriminalize marijuana we will see if that turns out to be objectively bad or not, I guess, another point which I am not sure about. What do you think?

I disagree that it is only moral arguments that get people angry. I think the writer has forgotten that we have an animal side and that there are instincts to expand territory and that is the basis of fights between animals and also between humans. There are also fights between people about mates, such as two men over a woman, or "space: such as a daughter -in-law fighting the mother-in-law about how to raise her kids, or about the time her husband spends with her versus with his mother. It is endless. The ego demands of one person can decide that he/she has the right to dictate to others and will move him/herself up the pecking order ladder until stopped.and the arguments can be about the most petty stuff. There are arguments about lack of respect shown or loss of face. There are fights about sex, about feelings, about insensitivity, about things that a person values e.g. restaurants or vacations, about games played, about rejection, about different perceptions. There is divorce.

we can call it "wrong" without reference to a higher power - we can call it whatever we want, it' relative; but, in an absolute sense, without an absolute, no terms we normally use for evaluation of values or behavior have any real meaning, including: good, bad, right wrong, righteous, evil; even relative terms become meaningless: better, worse, best, worst; every single action is simply no more than a personal preference.

What would one say the difference is between moral realism (not relativism) and a Jewish approach?

There is none. The Jewish approach recognizes that interpretation of morality is not a search for absolute correctness. Torah Lo BeShamayim Hi - the Torah (law) is not in heaven - it is a human exercise to understand and apply it and humans are fallible.

Humans are weak organisms who would not have survived without close cooperation. We need each other. To survive and prosper. More significan=tly to feel happy, the appreciation of others is essential. those who offrnd others carelessly seldom seem content, let alone happy!

Perpetuating society isn't enough because if there is a God (and there is) then there are absolutes and absolute consequences for our actions.

Whether or not there's an absolute morality isn't really relevant. As long as ppl are still able to come together and come up with laws that will perpetuate their society, this is sufficient. Whatever society deems as its norms is enough to call something 'wrong' or 'right.'

If someone thinks that murder is ok, we don't need to show him the Torah as proof it is wrong. All we need to tell him is that he has violated societal norms.

There are plenty of ppl. who don't believe in G-d and yet are good ppl who even strive to improve themselves. Case in point: Buddhists. They are apikorsim, but they believe that every action has consequences and it's important to develop one's character.

Also, just bc we might have an absolute morality (which I know we actually do)doesn't mean this will necessarily lead to a better society. The two temples were destroyed bc the Jews screwed up. They had sinas chinam, some of them were murderers, they gossiped, worshipped idols, didn't say Birchas HaTorah(sort of)--all of this during a period when Hakodesh Baruch Hu's presence was indisputable. So even if there's absolute morality, it doesn't mean it will have any effect on those subscribing to this idea.

Have a good shabbos.

Yes slavery is in the Torah. But don't confuse it with 18th century slavery in the US. If you read how the Torah defines slavery and for what purpose, you will see the difference.
The Jewish institution of slavery was initiated to give the destitute person a chance to "get back on his feet". He was a slave for only a certain amount of time and not even allowed to stay longer! The master was required to treat him humanely, feed him first, make sure he was warm and, at the end, give him some "start-up" money and allow him to take his wife and family with him!
There's more, but this, obviously, is a far cry from the servitude endured by Africans in the U.S.

God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."
Dostoyevsky never said it but that's o.k., you are not the first one to quote him incorrectly. It's like a good Chassidic story, even if it didn't happen, it could have happened. So too, even if Dostoyevsky didn't say it, he could have said it.
P.S. I enjoyed the rest of the piece.

excellent article

In an age when long thought-out standards, principles, ethics and morals are being forgotten or deliberatley discarded, it's good to see articles like this one that remind us of the value of the wisdom of the past - and history attests that there really are some forms of values that are better than others. One only has to existentially experience the chilling results of a standardless society - and in many ways we in America are moving there quickly. Time to rediscover and stand in awe of the Infinite and Absolute Standardbearer. Beyond the pale.

Many years ago, a close friend borrowed my car to do some heavy shifting. He left me the use of his smart new Audi for the day. Later in the day,I had to take my two young children out to their grandparents. James my six year old, having earlier seen our car drive away asked how we were going to get there. I replied "lets go out and see what we can find".
We walked along the street, with me peering into the various cars saying "how about this one" etc. James quickly joined in the game. Anna my four year old looked increasingly uncertain.
We came to my friend's car, and I tried the door. A quick rattle of the key in the lock and we were inside. James was laughing at the game, a ride in a smart new car. Anna burst into grief stricken tears. I could not console her. I, her father, was stealing a car.

I had never ever talked to her about stealing, she was preschool and would never have heard of the concept, yet she understood exactly the issues.
Anna's morality was not from education, it was not from relative morality but from the absolute. It was not taught but nevertheless known. Her conscience bore witness to what was right.
I believe we have an absolute morality/conscience when we are born, but that it can be perverted by education and experience and our personal choice to reject it.
Hitler deliberately set out to take over the conscience of the young. he said that once he owned their conscience he could do anything with them. This of course lead to the guards at the death camps saying that they were only obeying orders.
At the same time as this, others for no personal gain, were risking their lives to hide Jews, because they knew they could do no other thing.
Bob

Socrates offered an avenue of thought that produced effective communication and analysis of ones positon.I wonder what he would think of today's self indulgence.The book of Ecclesiastes should be required reading as well as Plato's Republic. The PC of today could also stand for "Poor Counsel".

At least in theory, it's possible to suggest human-based values which lead to increased happiness, peace and comfort for large numbers of people. Thus, if wanton cruelty tends to create disorder and danger in society, we can call it "wrong" without reference to a higher power. Moreover, another problem with Rabbi Coopersmith's argument is that there are plenty of things supposedly sanctioned by a "higher power" which we believe to be wrong-- take slavery, for example. It's right there in the Torah, which, in theory, means that God is OK with it. If I believe that slavery is absolutely wrong, then I am both: 1) disagreeing with the morality articulated by the higher power (assuming that the Torah is from a higher power), and 2) asserting a higher morality independent of any deity. Whether you like my particular morality or not, it is still absolute, and still independent of any higher authority.

this can lead to a good debate.:)

It is true that everyone chooses their own standard of morality and then defends it as "right." However, we also have convincing proof of the existance of a particular absolute standard. In analogy, one can liken this to a stepladder which is fixed and immovable but upon which everyone can choose their own particular level to sit (and move up and down it at will).

What provokes moral outrage is a question I would like to try and find an answer to.
I, personally, think that the way "morality" had been taken to ad absurdum but 100 years ago (the Victorian age) where im-morality bloomed because it was just "fun" to go "against the grain" Just like the musical "HAIR" shocked the generation of the 30s, but became the symbol of the 70s, I think that from then on the next generations who were growing up in the atmosphere of their pill taking mothers, have lost all sense of morality, morality being the wrong word because it entails rediculous demands on the part of the elders, I would call it self-crticism, self awarness and belief. To belief that there IS THAT INFINITE, THAT which has given us our first breath and takes it last, THAT which has given us a code/ a pole around which our life turns, a code of right and wrong.People can discuss what's right and wrong and they can belief or deny THAT which is beyond but we were given a SELF, call it self respect/ awarness/ esteem once you can recall this self, whatever is said by others is judged by you even if you haven't been given it from home don't turn your back to it, you must find it and then you find THAT which is the beyond.
I BELIEVE IN GOD IN WHICHEVER FORM / I BELIEVE!!
Anny Matar

Morality has to be absolute and eternal, but natural moral law derives from human nature and not directly from a divine source. One could well say that God created human nature and thus morality, but those who believe that human nature comes only from evolution can also accept a universal ethic as eternal and absolute.

once lay in bed staring at the ceiling and wondering... is there a dog?
This stuff is too serious for me.

Obviously there would be no morality if every individual could define morality, but what about community-decided morality?

Is the author saying "if a person doesn't believe in G-d, then that person cannot be a moral person"?

I'm not sure about this, but I'm interested!

Rabbi Coopersmith's presentation is thought provoking,as some absolute truth does, as he points out, stem from a timellessness, but it is unfortunately exclusionary, when it comes to real world application, and does not follw logically from his argument.(Which makes me suspicious of his motivation.)
The first clue that his argument is a bad one i.e. one that not only doesn't apply to real life but doesn't follow logically, is the statement that, "...Moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness." He further defies logic stating, "The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that a ("real,"absolute)truth is out there..."
I would submit that,any degree of moral relativism requires education, or at a minimum, the exchange of views e.g. various passages of the Talmud.One can hardly understand the various applications and nuances of morality without the intellectual exercise of any form of education. It would seem much easier to dispense with education, if the rule is absolute and present circumstance and energies don't impact. The rabbinical authorization of self-defense is the most obvious and simplistic of examples.Rabbi Coopersmith's thirst for education may be spurred by the yearning that there is an absolute truth out there to be learned, but mine is intensified by recognizing that only G-d is absolute, and not only are his teachings subject to interpretation, but require various exposures and learning in order to fully attempt to grasp them.
Further,I think the Rabbi's use of Bloom as a source and support for his argument was another obvious clue re the weakness of his argument. "...the real motive of education is the search for the good life." Seriously!! Does the Rabbi not acknowledge the great intrinsic value of understanding anything and everything about life and G-d, apart from any desire for the material good life? I understand Bloom's shallowness and his agenda. And i forgive him his oversimplificatiuon for purposes of self-aggrandizement. But the Rabbi? Un-uh!
Real debates and disagreements occur because we believe there are right and wrong positions for the time,people, circumstances, and energies that impact us and represent G-d's work.Few are arguments over ice cream flavors, and in any case ought to be offered in recognition that, if there are absolutes, only G-d knows them.

Thanks for raising these questions and giving examples.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I really enjoyed reading the article. It needs to be said more....people get so caught up in being right that they forget that only God is right and who are we to judge.

You are absoultely right !

Thank you for this brilliant piece of wisdom

Very true. Only G-d is the definer between TRUTH and ERROR. Well done.

If absolute truth does not exist, then as the author said, why argue? If all truth is relative, then you are right and I am, and everyone else is right. In fact no one is ever wrong. If no one is ever wrong and if we define learning as moving from wrong to right belief, then learning cannot occur.(So much for our educators of relative truth) The reason we argue is to help determine which truth is absolute for all. If absolute truth is out there to be discovered then we can have a meaningful discussion about what it is. No human being has absolute knowledge of absolute truth, only G-d does. But if truth is relative only to what you believe and I believe, I will choose to save my time, effort, and breath. Truth is that which corresponds to reality and if we cannot agree on that, then we have no common ground upon which to begin a discourse.

I agree with your premise that there is an absolute standard of morality that G-d established absolutely, without which there would be regrettable chaos.

Absolutism has always been a problem with me, since i am a strong believer in tolerance,

Its quite simple really, nothing an honest thinker shouldn't recognize. Rabbi Coopersmith does a wonderful job of clarifying relativism and its place in the general postmodern worldview. Yet like all other aspects of life, the world will have to slowly realize, probably with some anguish and failure, the eroding non-utility of utilitarianism. The Rambam and other medieval scholars,including important Christian and Muslim thinkers, recognized the need for a Primal Being in order to maintain some type of ethical and moral system. Yet now, while Nietzsche cries and Dostoyevsky warns, were still trying to live our lives without the Absolute. Chazaka to Rabbi Coopersmith for clarifying the apparently simple yet remarkably overlooked principle which is crucial to the way we live our lives.

This is a response to Anonymous, 4/7/2000, who writes, "But it cannot be denied that the absolute belief in an inflexible unchanging God has been the basis for many wars and the cause of much misery..." This misses the Rabbi's point. He is not writing to address the fact that some people use the notion of God to justify immoral behavior. But he is stating that because it appears that some kind of moral standard exists, the necessary grounding for this standard lies in the infinite realm not in the finite. A finite grounding would lead to complete subjectivity and since we don't perceive complete subjectivity about morality in the world (i.e. people not fighting about morality without thinking they are absolutely right.) we neither conclude that it has a finite grounding. Finally, Anonymous 4/7/2000, demonstrates the rabbi's point when he writes "Even 'Orthodox' Jews have sunken to the level of using their own belief in God and the absolutes of the Torah to justify unacceptable behavior." The last phrase 'unacceptable behavior' illustrates Rabbi Coopersmith's point, in that, Anonymous is himself appealing to an objective standard by which to point out certain behavior as "unacceptable."

well said

Belief in God for the most part is a good thing. But it cannot be denied that the absolute belief in an inflexible unchanging God has been the basis for many wars and the cause of much misery throughout history. Belief in God very often is nothing more than a justification for one's own morality. Even "Orthodox" Jew have sunken to the level of using their own belief in God and the absolutes of the Torah to justify unaccepatable behavior. Unfortunately morality is always determined by society. Religion is all too often used as a crutch taking away individual responsibility for indivisual actions.

I was visiting my friend,who does not keep shabbos, and was enraged at my mother for telling her that she was wrong. Maybe according to my mothers standards, but evryone has the freedom to choose the truth that works for them. my friend was just as right, this was HER choice,right? Wrong. Now I see why.

To me, Morality itself prooves G-d's existence. How could such notions of right and wrong simply evolve?

A cogently written essay. These thoughts (which I stumbled across in a book by Prager & Telushkin more than 10 years ago)are what made me realize I am not, in fact, an agnostic - but a person of faith. Faith which can also be understood and "proved" by rational thought. Understanding G-d through the heart is essential, but the mind can be a nasty stumbling block. But this kind of thinking both suppports and illuminates faith.

If there'd been an absolute truth, than people wouldn't have been arguing about laws. So even if we relize that G-d is the one who decides what's moral & what's not. There are still fine points that we argue about. Therefore we'll never agree about what's moral & what's not. For example: Definition of Murder.