Absolute or Relative Morality?

Religious fundamentalists (including Jews) claim moral superiority because their morality is absolute, from God, as opposed to secular and humanistic values, that shift over time. Herein lies the biggest flaw in their ideology.

Any serious student of Jewish history and halachah knows that Jewish law and morality has shifted over time. This is true for all religions. Even for the ultra-orthodox morality and law is not absolutist but evolved over time (albeit more slowly than general society), given societal pressures. Their morality is a function of the society with which they identify. Yes, it is anchored in an ancient tradition through a process, but it definitely shifts.

Think about attitudes about women, relations with non-Jews, slavery, economics, sacrifice, etc. To assert that Jewish ethics is absolute is completely ridiculous. A good book about this topic is "T'murot B'sadeh Hahalach", by Akiva Sternberg (in Hebrew).

As far as God being the source of morality, I would posit that most religious people observe their ethical norms because of the societal structure that they live in, not because of God, since clearly they have to determine what God wants of them through man's interpretation ("an eye for an eye", etc). Do not kill? It depends who is doing the killing and the being killed!!Would a Beit Din now burn a prostitute? This "intepretation" changes due to societal pressures and circumstances.

Just like American culture is a function of American history, laws, norms and societal pressure, Judaism started as the ethical and legal system of ancient Israel, and bears little resemblance to modern Judaism (even though many ultraorthodox like to believe that they are observing Judaism like they did during the Temple era).

IMHO, morality is a man-made construct to make society more livable, and is part of our emotional makeup. Religion then adds holiness to it and gives it metaphysical meaning. This perhaps strengthens it but also makes it resist the inevitable adaptation and change. Maybe for the better but who knows?

To all readers!

Please Note: I have changed the settings to this blog to allow anonymous comments, so you don't need to log in or have an account.

I welcome all of your comments!

JS

The teacher's strike in Israel is seriously disrupting hundreds of thousands of high school students and their families (including mine). Israel still has a very strong socialist vestige, and the labor laws and courts essentially block the possibility or breaking a strike. In the recent past, Israel has been afflicted by strikes at Ben Gurion airport, the sea ports, city services (including garbage collection), banks, universities, hospitals and postal services. There has been some form of teacher's strike almost every academic year. I would claim that at a societal level this is very dysfunctional and would qualify for a Darwin Award. Most of the strikes end with very marginal gains for the strikers, who then strike again after a short time. They are often political in nature, intended to advance the interest of a particular labor leader or organization. The electric company, which is a national monopoly and has the highest paid workers of any sector in the economy (including private), can also strike and bring the country to its knees but shutting down the power (although this hasn't happened in a long time, thankfully).

It's about time that Israel revises its labor law to ban strikes in the public sector (such a law exists in the US for federal workers) . In 2002 when Bibi Netanyahu was finance minister he initiated legislation to outlaw public worker strikes but backed down when the unions agreed to accepts wage cuts during a severe economic slowdown. These strike cause severe economic damage to Israel, not only in direct losses in productivity, but due to harm in its industry's ability to meet commitments to international partners, and thus result in lost/cancelled agreements, future deals and imposed penalties.

Peace Negotiations

One might almost begin to believe the news reports regarding negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The fact is that these are destined to go nowhere for the forseeable future. Here's why:

1. Everybody--the Americans, the Israelis and the Palestinians--know that the bottom line positions of the two sides are mutually incompatible. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the state they seek and remain viable herself.
2. The extremists on the Palestinian side will veto any potential agreement using violence and terrorism. This can be counted on.
3. The Americans are stretched thin militarily and diplomatically and cannot do anything unilaterally. They need the support of the Europeans for dealing with Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria.
4. It follows from 1-3 above, that, to help get Europe on board, the best course for the Americans is to create the illusion of diplomatic activity and that they are trying to solve the Middle East's problems. Thus all of Condy's trips. the November conference, etc.
5. It follows from 4, above, that Israel must cooperate with this game, knowing full well that it will lead nowhere, and that it must tread carefully in order to avoid being pressured into making compromises that jeapordize its current or future security. Thus, the talks with Abu Mazen, who is powerless to cancel a parking ticket, and trial balloons in the press every day.
If the past is any indication, it would seem that at some point the negotiations will blow up (again) and lead to a new wave of violence.

Zionism, US foreign policy, and Muslim Terrorism

Because of propaganda directed at the West, by Al Qaida and Palestinian terrorist groups, it is easy for some of us (either because of wishful thinking or well-meaning humanistic ideals) to be convinced that terrorism is a desperate, pained response by the Muslims to real or perceived injustices. If somehow we could only redress these greivances, we could get to the root cause of terrorism. This is the standard narrative of the Left here in Israel and liberals in America. Never mind that there isn't any evidence for this being true, given our experience with terrorism (particularly that it INCREASES any time we make gestures, concessions, or attempt to make agreements).
For those of you who have any doubt about the matter, I advise you to read this. Basically, the author shows that propaganda directed to western liberal audiences (particularly the message that terrorism is punishment for Western misbehavior, and promises to stop if certain conditions are met) is psychological warfare, while in propaganda to Arabs no mention is made of Zionist or American crimes. Rather, the issue is the fundamental Muslim attitude towards the kufr, the non-believer.
These Muslims harbor resentment over their status of inferiority in relation to the western world. In any measurable sphere of human progress-- economic, scientific, technological, and political-- they are behind. The fact that the kufr is more powerful than them and not subservient is unacceptable in their theology. In their view the Quran commands them to fight the kufr until defeat or until they convert to Islam.
The Palestinian cause has been effectively hijacked by Islamicism. It is no longer about nationalism, because they could have had their Palestinian state along time ago. The Palestinian terrorists' narrative is that of unending Islamic resistance to the heretics and their control over "Islamic lands".
Our strategy is to utterly defeat them, or bring them to the point where they feel that their cause is hopeless.

Moral Psychology, Columbia U and Ahmadinejad

The recent controversy surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit to New York and the audience granted to him at Columbia highlights the moral dilemmas and conflicting values inherent in liberal Western values. While most of the media and politicians refer mainly to the limitations of the right to freedom of speech, in reality the differences of opinion on this matter reflect a deep- seated argument about morality that goes to the core of our values. By the time this essay appears I assume that much will have been said about the Iranian president's visit; therefore in this essay I will focus on the broader controversy regarding the source of our morality, using the visit as an example for analysis.

In the past few years several books have been published espousing atheism. Books by Richard Dawson, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are among the most popular recent entries into the fray. The books have generated much controversy and public reaction. Although the specifics of their styles and focus are different, the thrust of these books boils down to three main points: 1. Science, and not religion, has proven itself useful in finding answers to questions about our physican world. 2. Religion accounts for much, of not most of the evil in the world. 3. The multitude of incompatible and conflicting religious beliefs, combined with the internal inconsistencies in each, demonstrate their falsehood. All of the authors come to the same conclusion: The world would be a better place without religion. While I don't want to foray into this endless debate, I want to focus on the specific claim regarding morality: that a godless, liberal, western and rational society represents the best morality available.

Dawkins and his ilk propose that rational, fair-minded thinking is capable of producing ethics on par with those of religious communities. But what kind of ethics? While one could easily agree on the most basic tenets of humanity, such as not killing, stealing, and the provision of justice, it is beyond this point the moral systems of the religious and atheist diverge. Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginian, wrote an excellent essay entitled "Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion". (available online at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html ) Haidt speaks of 5 components of our moral sensibilities, which are functions of both our intellect and emotional makeup. (1) harm/care; (2) fairness/reciprocity; (3) ingroup/loyalty; (4) authority/respect; and (5) purity/sanctity (the sense that certain things are noble or repulsive). According to Haidt, the first 2 components make up the "contractual" model of morality, which holds the individual as the highest unit of value.

Accordingly, in this liberal world view, the ultimate ethic is to avoid harm and suffering to the individual and increase happiness. In contrast, in the religious, conservative world view, components 3,4 and 5 take no less an important role. Haidt calls this the "beehive" model, in that while the individual has rights, these are no less important than his responsibilities to the cohesivenes of the group. These responsibilities are reinforced by respect towards authority, loyalty towards one's group (whatever it may be), and a common sense of what is worthwhile and what is not. These are psychological mechanisms that help suppress the human tendency towards selfishness, and reinforce generosity, self-sacrifice and loyalty. One can assume that the "liberal" atheist outlook contains these ethical concepts as well, but they are emphasized to a much lesser degree. Furthermore, without the "myth" of religion, or national or ethnic narrative, these components of morality are much harder to maintain.

Let us now return to our case of Mr. Ahmadinejad. The liberal, secular ethic would emphasize the ultimate "fairness" of protecting the free speech of even a hostile non-citizen. Furthermore, this freedom is necessary in order to protect the individual from the potential "harm/suffering" of suppression of expression. In contrast, the "religious" view, while acknowledging the need to not harm people, nonetheless underlines the need to protect the "unit" of society, in terms of security and cohesiveness. Furthermore, it acknowledges and validates the human sense of "revulsion" that we have towards our declared enemy, thus not granting him the same treatment given to our own group.

Article from Magazine "Duh!"

Here is a product of the 3000 year old accumulated Jewish intelligence:

Cabinet votes Gaza a 'hostile entity'

2 years ago we withdrew from Gaza. Since then, this "entity" has demonstrated non-stop hostility towards Israel, with daily attempts at bombing, shootings, infiltrations and rocket attacks on civilian targets. Meanwhile, we supply them with electricity, water, fuel and food. We also allow their workers to come into Israel for work. Then, if we threaten to stop materially supporting our enemies, we are accused of collective punishment.

The absurdity of this situation is a function of what Richard Dawkins calls "shifting moral zeigeist". Basically, this means that moral standards shift over time. Rights take precedence over responsibilities. During WWII or during the Vietnam War, the US or Britain could firebomb entire areas and kill civilians indiscriminately, who paid the price of the war effort. This same behavior would now be considered unacceptable, among Western powers. Nowadays the "rights" of the individual to safety (in our case the Palestinians) take precedence over the right or responsibility that Israel has to defend its citizens. It is also more important than the Palestinians' responsibility to prevent rockets being forward from their land. So Israel has to equivocate and do pilpul (talmudic back and forth analysis) before even turning off electricity in Gaza.

Iranian Nukes

I propose that Ehud Olmert forward the following email to the leader of Iran:



TO: Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the entire Iranian leadership

FROM: The Jewish State

SUBJECT: Your nuclear "project"



Dear Mr. President,



Of late there has been much discussion regarding nuclear technological development in your country. Although you deny the intention to develop nuclear weapons, it is unclear what belies your evasiveness, stonewalling and diplomatic maneuvering. Furthermore, your expressed desire to wipe our country "off the map" makes your hostile intentions towards us quite clear (if you mean what you say).

As a signatory to the NNPT you have a right to nuclear technology for civilian peaceful purposes, and Israel has no intention in interfering with this. But let me be crystal clear in stating, that Israel has no intention of allowing you to "wipe" us off the map, or allowing to you to possess the means to do so. We will vigorously defend our right to exist in our land, and will do whatever is required to secure that right. I believe that recent events in Syria adequately demonstrate our willingness and ability to do so.

Whatever your attitudes are towards the West in general or Israel specifically, we have no a priori hostile intent towards you and have no wish for war. However, as the leader of my country I will not shy away from the responsibility of defending the world's sole Jewish state from destruction, by you or anybody else.

For the sake of all peoples in the region, I call upon you to openly and fully cooperate with the IAEC's effort to verify your compliance with the NNPT and to confirm your development of solely civilian nuclear capabalities.

What happened in Syria?

The fog about the recent IDF incident in Syria leaves us curious and thirsty for more information. What really happened there?

Lacking inside information (even Debkafile doesn't know!), but by reconstructing a few known facts we can try to guess:

1. Even by Syrian reports this was not an accidental or incidental foray across Syria's border. It was a deep infiltration via its northwestern coastal frontier to its central-eastern sector. Yet the planes were reportedly only fired upon upon their exit to the northwest.

2. The Syrians waited a full 12 hours before reporting the infiltration. This perhaps means that they were deliberating what information to release or to report on it at all. In other words, they appear to be concealing something, perhaps the targets, or the degree to which their anti-aircraft systems failed. Note that Russia was one of the first countries to condemn the raid.

3. The dumping of the fuel tanks appears to be an evasive maneuver. On their way out the planes were detected and being fired upon, but without being hit. (One can assume that if planes were downed we would know about it from gleeful Syrians)

4. What does the Israeli silence mean? There was probably a secret, sensitive mission (beyond routine surveillance), which, either 1. did not go as planned or 2. succeeded. My impression is of the latter, because if there was a failure we would be hearing leaks and people blaming each other for it. The smug, self-confident denials (and almost uncharacteristic total silence from govenrment officials) makes me believe that the mission was succesful, or that they are waiting for intelligence assessments of the mission.

5. What could the mission have been? Possibilities include 1. a probing of the Syrian/Russion/Iranian air defense systems. 2. destruction of the above system. My guess is the first, as an attack on a military target would be a clear provocation to war in which Israel is not interested at this point.

Islam and Terrorism

Five Reasons that western intellectuals give for terrorism and the Arabs/Muslims hatred of the west:

1. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and lack of a Palestinian state
2. America's support for Israel
3. America's support for non-democratic Arab/Muslim regimes
4. Poverty and economic backwardness of Arabs
5. Western exploitation of Muslims (oil)

And Five Reasons why they are wrong...

1. Every time Israel and the Palestinians get close to some kind of peace agreement terrorism increases. The Palestinians would have had their state a long time ago were it not for Hamas and the second intifada.

2. Osama bin Laden couldn't care less about the Palestinians, whose lot only worsened after 9/11. If suddenly there were Pal-Israel peace, would Ibn Laden go away? Would Muslims stop blowing up Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ssudi Arabia, Sudan?

3. The Arab world is not ready for democracy. What happened when Algeria, Gaza and Iraq tried to democratize? Islamic fundamentalists took over and guess what? terrorism. America has supported plenty of non democratic govenments in its history, without promoting terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists came from well off families, professional men.

4. Poverty and economic backwardness abounds in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. Impoverished Hindus, Vietnamese, Brazilians, Cubans? No terrorism.

5. There is economic interdependence between OPEC countries and the west, not exploitation. The west's economy needs oil, and OPEC's countries get huge amounts of cash.

The west's excuses are just wishful thinking and adopting of the Islamists own narrative. If only WE would be good the terrorists will go away...

So, what are the real reasons?

1. Arabs and fundamentalist Muslims are offended by Western infidels' dominance of the world and their own backwardness. This contradicts their religious expectations, sensibilities, history and sense of justice.

2. As much as they hate the West, they hate even more their own co-religionists who cooperate with the West. Thus their first goal is to topple "pro-western" muslim and Arab regimes.

3. A global economy and technological development have allowed previously impossible activities for terrorists. Cheap Asian made weapons, cellphones, internet and computers have given terrorists access to the logistics and coordination previously available only to governments or large organizations. While guerrilla warfare and terrorism also existed in the past, it was much harder and much less deadly. So now the fundamentalists have new tools at their disposal. They are empowered with new abilities.

4. The Islamists understand the modern West's weaknesses and how to exploit them: tolerance, sensitivity to suffering and loss of human life, democratic systems of government.

Despite the differences, there are remarkable similarities between the rise of Islamicism and the rise of Fascism. They are populist movements, led by demagogues who take advantage of the inferiority complex of peoples, fueled by resentment from real or imagined grievances, and whose growing power and danger are underestimated by liberal western societies. Western attempts at appeasement only encourage the Islamists and strengthen them.

Here are my favorite Israel news analysis web sites

Recommended sites:

• Ynet-- The online version of Yediot Achronot, Israel's leading daily, available in Hebrew and English. Its a bit sensationalist, but overall gives fairly accurate headlines.
• Jerusalem Post-- The leading English newspaper. The English editing is a bit weak, sometimes a bit dull, and the coverage is shallow at times. Editorial slant fairly centrist, with columnists representing both liberal and conservative views.
• GPlanet-- Dr. Guy Bechor, if the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. News analysis and opinion. Provides very interesting essays regarding current events, from the point of view of an expert on Middle East affairs. Hebrew and English.
• JCPA-- Excellent articles and essays on Israel, from a strategic, military and diplomatic perspective, in English.
• Google News-- gives excellent coverage of the region, with often interesting news and analysis from foreign, including Arab, sites.
• Israel National News-- English news site operated by Arutz 7, the right wing national religious station. The news stories are accurate, and right wing editorial for those who care to read them. Also, the site features good-news type human interest stories about life in Israel.

Not Recommended:

• Haaretz-- a far left, anti-Zionist newspaper with poor editorial standards. Blatant editorial bias in news stories and headlines, and no accountability for inaccuracies. Haaretz does have a good financial section.
• Debkafile-- A neo-con news and analysis website that claims to reveal behind the scenes scoops on current events. Basically conspiratorial and unreliable. Most of their "predictions" turn out to be false and their "sources" are questionable. They take bits of information, some reliable and some not, and weave them into an overall theory to fit their "spin"-- usually doom and gloom, neocon. Sometimes entertaining.