(I added the following to my prior submitted essay)
Morality
In his Guide for the Perplexed 1:2, Maimonides (1138-1204) interprets the story of the Garden of Eden as a parable. He stresses that people must use the “image of God,” which Genesis 1:27 states God placed in humans. In Guide 1:1, he interprets the “image” as intelligence. In Guide 3:17, he explains that the concept of “Divine Providence” does not mean that God helps people; the “Divine Providence” is the intelligence that God placed in humans, and the more developed the intelligence, the more excellent help it gives.
He notes that Adam and Eve are not prohibited from eating from a tree of truth and falsehood but a tree of good and evil. He explains that this tree is a symbol of morality. Morality is generally easy to understand, with wise and courteous rules that advise people how to act. They are frequently perfect guides, but not always. Sometimes, it makes more sense to do the opposite.
Maimonides explains that the parable teaches that people should develop their intelligence to decide how to act so that they never rely on moral teachings that are good for most citizens but not the best way to determine how to act.
This was also the view of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche has Zarathustra teach the Übermensch, the superior human, as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch rejects the otherworldly Christian values and the mindless moral concepts that ordinary folks need.
The difference between morality and following Maimonides and Nietzsche
Übermensch is a German word that translates to “overman” or “superman”. It’s a philosophical concept that describes a person who transcends conventional morality, relies on the person’s learning and intelligence, and creates values and meaning in life.
As Maimonides taught, God did not want the creation of puppets. He did not desire that humans should be strapped to strings that He would pull to direct their lives and through which He would help them. Humans are not God’s toys. Instead, he gave them free choice, the “image of God,” which is intelligence, and explained that intelligence, not God pulling strings, that helps humans when they need help. The more individuals develop their intelligence, the more help they receive.
But humanity has not yet sufficiently developed. Large numbers of them fail to spend time improving their minds, learning, and having the ability to make decisions. As a result, society developed rules called morality that guide and advise people on how to act. These guides are not perfect; they vary in different locations and times. They fail to address all situations.
While God did not want to tie people as puppets, society did so with the imperfect rules of morality. Unfortunately, people who are not accustomed to thinking before acting but rely on the strings of morality become confused.
Thinking is challenging but usually leads to better results than imperfect moral codes.
For example, some members of the general public find it hard to understand many issues of war, such as collateral damage, which conflicts with the moral concept of protecting lives. They gather in mobs and protest the war because they have insufficient knowledge of how philosophers handle the subject.
The patriarch Abraham is the best example of the Übermensch. Time after time, he rejected the moral teachings of his time and used reason. He fearlessly questioned God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He struggled against the ethical teaching of his society that it was proper to sacrifice a son that one loved to God. When his nephew was captured by more than several nations in war, he gathered his armed forces and rescued him. In contrast, the matriarch Rachel agreed with the moral idea of her time that an older daughter must be married first and deceived and hurt Jacob, who loved her by allowing her sister to marry Jacob. It resulted in Jacob needing to work many years to gain the woman he loved.
Far worse, those who rely on morality live a life of passivity, rarely taking the initiative. Instead, they allow moral strings to draw them to proper behavior. As a result, these moral men and women often fail to become all they can be and make little or no contribution to society.
I agree that people should use their intelligence but IQ isn’t everything. Drive, ambition, and morals go into it. Morals can help prevent people from getting themselves into trouble. For example, if you have morals then, like the Bible says, don’t gamble. I think that most people need morals. Even intelligent people should have morals.
Yes,Imtelligent people should act morally. We need to understand that there are two defintions to morality. The first simply means behave properly. Intellegent people should do this and they do behave properly because of their intelligence. The second defintion, the one that bothered Maimonides, Nietsche, me, and others is the laws of morality. These laws are great for people who cannot use their intelligence in all situations. They are gemeraly good guides, but they vary from country to country and change over time. What Maimonides etc suggested is that the best way to act is to study, learn, improve one’s mind and make rational decisions, not rely on guides developed for people who cannot think.
See my explanation above.
Thank you for clarifying the difference between morality and the laws of morality. I also agree with you, Maimonides, Nietsche, etc, that intelligent people should not always rely on the laws of morality but use reason to determine what is the best course of action. I also agree with you that everyone should behave properly and act morally. We agree. Your clarification helped me.
Maimonides and Friedrich Nietzsche (who was mistakenly interpreted as an anti-Semite) both argued that imperfect morality, while useful for the masses, is not ideal. For a rational person or an Übermensch, morality should not be dictated by societal conventions but instead, they should rely on reason. If morality is imperfect because it is a human construct, how does this perspective relate to Torah laws? Many scholars, including the learned Jew, Spinoza, felt that the Bible is a human document. If the Torah, like morality, is a product of human invention, can we assert that Torah laws are imperfect? I am trying to say that certain laws were fit for certain times and localities. For example, the law of animal sacrifice was fit for ancient people but not for us.
Even if the Torah is a human document, it is still sacred because it contains wisdom. People need to use their intelligence. Often what one’s intelligence tells us is wrong, but we need to think anyway and remedy our mistakes. Even if the Bible is a human product, it is the best that humans can produce. A perfect guide, It is sacred.
I agree with you. I think the greatest works ever written are the US Constitution and the Bible.
Appreciate the discourse , dear Rabbi Israel Drazin, surrounding the interpretation of our forebears, Abraham and Rachel. The exposition of their actions, whether viewed through the lens of moral obligation or that of reason and intellect, is a profound subject of inquiry.
The brilliance of the biblical narrative lies in its multifaceted nature, allowing for varied interpretations. I do maintain that my interpretation serves as a vehicle for demonstrating how one might embody an idealized form of humanity, akin to the concept of the “ubermensch” as articulated in contemporary philosophy. This notion emphasizes the elevation of human potential through reason and intellect, transcending traditional moral boundaries in pursuit of a higher purpose.
In my own philosophical framework, the pursuit of knowledge—intellectual engagement—is paramount. This does not mean that morality is to be discarded; rather, it suggests that the appropriate application of intelligence can lead us to more profound moral insights. Thus, I argue that while morality is a guiding force, the rigorous application of reason is essential in navigating the complexities of ethical dilemmas. It is indeed necessary to integrate both realms: the clarity of logic with the fortitude of moral principles.
In conclusion, my interpretation aligns more closely with the aspiration of achieving an exceptional existence through the fusion of intellect and action, even at the risk of standing apart from conventional morality.
I think we are in agreement as usual. I respect you very much.
We can approach this matter with both reverence for our patriarch Abraham and the complexities of moral philosophy intertwined with Jewish thought, dear Rabbi Israel Drazin.
Abraham, indeed, is a towering figure in our tradition, exemplifying the integration of intellectual inquiry and ethical behavior. He personifies the noble pursuit of truth, exemplified by his willingness to challenge what he perceived as divine justice concerning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His courageous questioning of God’s intentions serves as a testament to his profound understanding of compassion and morality—traits that transcend simple obedience.
Your portrayal of Abraham as a precursor to the Übermensch, in the sense of a transcendent individual who surpasses societal norms, merits careful consideration. Yet we must be cautious in applying modern philosophical concepts to ancient texts without fully grasping the dimensions of those texts. While Abraham broke through the moral boundaries of his time, it is crucial to recognize that his actions were grounded in a covenantal relationship with God—a relationship that entailed deep ethical obligations rather than mere rebellion against norms.
As for Rachel, one must understand her actions in the context of her time and society. The traditions surrounding marriage were deeply ingrained. Her deception, while seemingly rooted in a misguided adherence to societal expectations, can also be interpreted as an act of personal agency influenced by the cultural realities she faced. Our narratives often showcase the complexities of human motivations, revealing that even moral actions are frequently dimmed by the shadows of circumstance and familial loyalty.
The argument that reliance on morality leads to passivity is a provocative assertion. However, in Jewish thought, morality is not seen as a constraint, but rather as a guide to live a life that fulfills the divine ideal—what we refer to as “Tikkun Olam,” or the healing of the world. Effective moral action often springs from commitment to ethical principles, which can, in fact, inspire initiative and leadership, rather than diminish an individual’s potential.
Therefore, while we honor the boldness of Abraham’s actions, it is instrumental to appreciate that both his challenge to societal norms and the struggles of figures like Rachel are part of the same moral tapestry that teaches us about the complexities of human experience, agency, and the quest for greatness within the bounds of our ethical obligations. It is through this nuanced lens that we can aspire to be truly remarkable—each in our own right—by balancing reason, ethics, and initiative in service of a higher purpose.
I agree with Stephen that we can interpret the behavior of Abraham and Rachel as not shunning morals and using reason. There are many ways to interpret the Bible. However, I was searching for a way to show how people could live as an ubermensch. The interpretation that I gave is a possible example of this. At the moment, I like my interpretation better, even though I recognize that Stephen may be right. I also think that Maimonides was correct in stressing the use of intelligence over morality.
The problem with philosophers determining morality is that there are vast differences in what philosophers consider to be moral. And unless you are a prophet, there is no way of knowing with certainty what God wants of us . So all we can depend on is Torah principles as applied by the rabbis to any given situation . The older sister getting married to the younger sister was a societal convention based on respect of the younger sibling for the older sibling and based on the principle that the older sister has less reproductive years compared to the younger sister. So it is meant to perpetuate the species. Based on your reasoning Abraham should have rejected God’s command to sacrifice his son. The Akeidah is the exception that proves the rule that all morality is based on God because only God can foresee the future consequences of any commandment
I agree that people including PHilosophers disagree what is the appropriate behavior and we should follow what the Torah teaches.
Intelligence Dear Rabbi,
Is the most important aspect of being fully human?
Or is it our bodies?
Can you call a human being human when he rejects his own brain and everything doing things mindlessly or listening to what others say with out thinking?
Aristotle said if we do not use our intelligence we are no better thanplants and animals.
Far worse, those who rely on morality live a life of passivity, rarely taking the initiative. Instead, they allow moral strings to draw them to proper behavior. As a result, these moral men and women often fail to become all they can be and make little or no contribution to society.
Dear Israel,
If people who live moral lives do not harm others and strive for the best are they no longer moral but intelligent people?
They are intellgent if they make decisions based on reason.
Can someone filled with truthful ideas become wicked?
For instance, a rabbi which has secular and jewish knowledge
goes into a fit of rage and rapes a woman at the ripe age of 70 and he has no crimes.
Yes, even pious people need to be careful not to get wrong ideas and not to make mistakes.
What happens if intelligence is used to harm people?
For instance, i torture people and rape them and in a decisive manner which causes people harm and is morally wrong?
I used the finest and strongest methods to torture people for fun for my amusement?
Yes, intelligence can be misused.