Natural Morality

Before I continue with the discussion about purpose and goals, I would like to explain my statement in the last post “He makes it clear that this proper behavior is not limited to Torah and Mitzvot but is moral behavior universally accepted by all philosophers”. This is extremely important because many hold that morality and ethics have no meaning without Torah.

I want to focus here on the issue of morality only and address the issue of ethics at another time. For this post, I define morals as setting limits to self-indulgence. In the introduction to Pirush Hamishna, I quoted in my earlier post, Rambam writes:

רצוני לומר: "החכמה
לצייר בשכלו אמיתות הדברים כפי שהם עליו, ולהשיג כל מה שאפשר לאדם להשיגו
ו"המעשה" - הוא תיקון ויישור הדברים הטבעיים, ושלא יהיה שטוף בתענוגים,
ושלא ייקח מהם אלא מה שיהיה בו תיקון גופו ותיקון מידותיו כולן

When I say [a perfected man is one who has] “knowledge” I mean one who can picture in his mind the reality of all things as they are and to apprehend everything a man can[1]. “Action” means: (i) - The perfection of natural things [using the scientific knowledge acquired to make things better]. (ii) - Not indulging in physical pleasures. One should not indulge in them more than the necessary for bodily needs. (iii) – Perfecting all of one’s traits.

But then Rambam surprisingly adds -

וזה הדבר לא נודע מאת הנביאים בלבד, אבל חכמי האומות החולפות, ואשר לא
ראו הנביאים ולא שמעו חכמתם, כבר ידעו גם הם, שאין אדם שלם, אלא כשיהיה
כולל החכמה והמעשה. ודי לך בדברי החכם המפורסם בפילוסופיה שאמר: "חפץ האל
ממנו להיות נבונים-חסידים". שהאדם כשיהיה חכם ונבון, אבל מבקש תאוות –
אינו חכם על האמת; שתחילת החכמה מחייבת, שלא ייקח אדם ממעדנים הגופניים
אלא מה שיש בו תיקון צורך גופו.

This is not something we were taught only by the prophets. The wise of the ancient nations, who never saw prophets nor heard their wisdom, already knew that a person is not complete unless he encompasses knowledge and action. The philosopher’s statement “God wants us to be intelligent and righteous” says it all; for a man who is wise and intelligent but a pleasure seeker is not truly wise. The basic premises of wisdom compel a person to not indulge in physical pleasures more than the basic needs of his body.

There is a natural morality that all wise men acknowledge exists. A narcissistic person, whose only goal in life is to indulge in as much pleasure as possible, even if that person is the greatest genius and has acquired all knowledge, is not a perfect human being. Knowledge is a very powerful tool and narcissism is the underlying cause for misusing that power, allowing it to be used destructively. Setting limits to self-interest and developing traits that promote altruistic behavior is crucial. The problem is that judging if the behavior promoted by knowledge is correct is subjective and we must develop criteria that allow us to measure it objectively.

I quote from Rav Kook’s recent sefer, Shemona Kevatzim (page 21) –

אסור ליראת שמים שתדחק את המוסר הטבעי של האדם כי אז אינה עוד יראת שמים טהורה סימן ליראת שמים טהורה הוא כשהמוסר הטבעי הנטוע בטבע הישר של האדם הולך ועולה על פיה במעלות יותר גבוהות ממה שהוא עומד מבלעדיה אבל אם תצוייר יראת שמים בתכונה כזאת שבלא השפעתה על החיים היו החיים יותר נוטים לפעול טוב ולהוציא אל הפועל דברים מועילים לכלל ולפרט ועל פי השפעתה מתמעט כח הפועל ההוא יראת שמים כזאת היא יראה פסולה

Fear of heaven (Yra’at Shamayim) may not supersede a man’s natural morals, for in that case it is not pure Yra’at Shamayim. Pure YS is recognizable as such when the natural morality that is implanted in the correct [proper] nature of man is elevated by it to levels that are higher than it would be without it. A hypothetical YS that without its influence on life, there would be a stronger push to do good by bringing to fruition things that contribute to the welfare of the public and the individual, while under its [YS] influence this would be diminished, such a YS is wrong [false].

Yra’at Shamayim, a subjective by-product of knowledge, can be narcissistic too, becoming counter-productive. To judge its legitimacy we must look at the practical results thereof. So too must we judge knowledge. If it causes one to act in ways that enhance the public and the individual, that knowledge is legitimate. Otherwise, that person is “not truly wise”. This brings us back to the subject of purpose and goals.


[1] It is worthwhile to note the language that gives a sense of limitation to what a man can know.