Should we clone people? Is there such a thing as a life not worth living? When is it correct to go to war? Is terrorism always wrong? Is there anything wrong with same-sex marriages? Can abortion ever be legitimized? The list of 21st century ethical dilemmas is endless. The key issue in this regard is: how and on what biases do we answer these ethical dilemmas? Indeed this is a question that concerned the earliest philosophers.
In western philosophy there are generally three views as to the origin of ethics. Firstly there is the "Divine Command Theory of Ethics" which contends that ethics originates from G-d -- that which G-d commands is arbitrarily good and ethical. The counterargument to this maintains that this view leads to the absurdity where G-d can, in theory, decree adultery to be ethical. If one argues that G-d cannot do this one is admitting that ethical standards are set by something outside G-d.1
Following on from the "Divine Command Theory" is the "Theory of Forms," put forward by Plato, which holds that there is an independent "form" outside of G-d which is the absolute standard of morality and ethics. The problem here is that this absolute standard was never revealed to a spatio-temporal world, so one could never be certain that one has attained the absolute standard of ethics. We therefore face the original dilemma: what is ethical?
The third view holds that all knowledge is relative to the individual, in which case there cannot be absolute morality: all ethics are relative to circumstances, people and cultures. This view too is problematic because, taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as ethics at all.2
There is an enigmatic verse in the Torah that seems to relate directly to this debate. G-d says to Moses, "Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, the L-rd your G-d, am holy."3 The command "You shall be holy" elicits debate among the commentators. Some hold that it means that one should be particularly careful in matters of sexual morality.4 Predicating their view on the Talmud, others maintain that it refers to the need to remain self-disciplined even in matters which carry no Torah prohibition. According to this "You shall be holy" implores one always to be abstemious and self-disciplined when it comes to material pleasures.5 Interestingly, this interpretation of the verse is identical to Aristotle's view on how human ethical conduct is to be determined.
"You shall be holy for I, the L-rd, your G-d, am holy" may seem a rather vague argument for ethical conduct; however, it encapsulates a tremendously deep explanation regarding the origins of ethics. G-d created man "in His image." 6 According to the Kabbalists this verse indicates that G-d possesses "attributes" (middot or sefirot). In the Kabbalistic system there are ten G-dly attributes, three of which are intellectual and seven emotional. It must be noted however that the G-dly attributes are perfect and infinitely different to those of humans. So when the Torah says that the fact that G-d is ethical (holy) is a reason for humans to be ethical (holy), it means that the origin of morality comes from G-d Himself. The perfect form, the standard bearer for perfect morals--which Plato saw as being outside G-d--in fact originates from within G-d Himself. G-d is revealing that the ethical laws that are written in the Torah are not just relative moral laws or an intellectual analysis of human nature leading to educated guesses regarding what is and what is not ethical.7 Rather, the ethical laws found in the Torah are a G-dly revelation of that Divine perfect form which is a paradigm for ethical human conduct. Indeed, there is no surer way to be certain of what is ethical and what is not than to have the standard bearer of ethical conduct reveal it to us.
So when confronted with the massive ethical dilemmas of the 21st century there is only one place to turn for the answers: to the perfect form which is the origin of ethics, as manifested in the Torah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | See regarding this "The Euthyphro Dilemma" found in Plato's The Last Days of Socrates. |
| 2. | For an excellent summery of these views in greater detail see, Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch in their The Puzzle of Ethics. |
| 3. | Leviticus 19:2. |
| 4. | Rashi. |
| 5. | Nachmanides. |
| 6. | Genesis 1:26-27. |
| 7. | This is known as, "The Natural Law Approach to Morality" put forward by Thomas Aquinas. |
We may have NGOs like Oxfam, Unicef, Catholic Relief, Jewish World Services, CARE, etc., today, but drought and famine have been around for thousands of years (to wit, the Torah: "And there was famine in the land"), before there were any NGOs or even radio to broadcast about the starvation and seek international aid. No, millions of innocent kids starved to death for thousands of years, and it was all the fault of that monster, God, who failed to send rain. Don't whitewash Him.
And you didn't even mention the rest of what I wrote.
I welcome a thoughtful response. You sound angry.
New York City
There is enough food and resources in the world for everyone.
The majority do not know how to share/distribute the blessings.
The majority do not know or regard Torah.
Nothing wrong with God.....everything wrong with me and you.
canada
So, if God created ethics, how can we ever say He is "good"?
Second, God kills 10,000 innocent children worldwide every day through slow death by starvation (He neglects to send rain). Thousands more daily via His pathogens. And God created carnivorous animals, then set them loose to tear prey to shreds, and it is God who was kind enough to give the victims nervous systems so that they could fully experience the agony and terror of being chased and eaten alive. And it is God who commits "acts of God" such as earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, & hurricanes that kill millions of innocents.
We were created in the image of THAT monster. We have His ethics, and that's why we kill
New York, NY
I like the beginning of of the article but of course until it got to the end... disappointing! Then of course the issue deviates to other things like "cloning" of human beings. Well, let's get some things cleared first, for "ethical" dilemmas will not stop.
Nature of "ethics", let's re-evaluate... I like reason too. By the looks of it we are not anywhere closer to solve our problems with one "G_d" mentality. It instead instigates, to separate conditions separate actions. Not too mention "Buddhist Ethics" which goes even beyond... We are all in this together... and taking sides is not the solution. I was hoping that sooner rather than later...but for the looks of it, we are barely scratching heads still. Let us re-define Ethics itself and its nature.
Olathe, KS. USA
Lansdowne, PA
Lansdowne, PA
Timbuktu
Posted By Anonymous, New York, NY
"
... interesting. It begst the question; will a cloned human being actually have a soul. I properly done clone ( not that I want to see it...) may not be any different than you or me.
Miami Shores, Fl
Summit, NJ/USA
chabadcares.com
New York, NY