Alexander Liss
A stable society could be described with
its bounds. These bounds are not imposed on it; these bounds define it as
something different from its surroundings.
Moral
values are bounds of stable society presented in rules of individual behavior.
It is possible to have different presentations for the same society, and they
actually exist and used by different subcultures of the same society. Different
societies have different bounds and different hence different presentations.
All
societies are human societies and there is commonality between them, which is
reflected in commonality of their moral values. Often, this commonality is not
clear because of difference of presentation of bounds defining a society, but this
commonality is felt even without a special study.
Moral
values could be grasped logically and be a subject of scientific study. Values
taken on Faith represent something beyond reach of logic. However, in many
religious presentations, moral values and values taken on Faith are
intertwined, and this is a source of confusion.
This confusion is exacerbated, when one does not differentiate between:
- taking something as a set of axioms and
building a model on it with understanding that there are different sets of
axioms and different models
- believing that something is true, with a
hope to find justification for this later
- trusting someone's judgment and
incorporating it into decision-making until serious contrary information comes
- believing that some statement is right,
because consequences of a mistake are negligible
- believing in something in
spite of obvious contradiction with own experience, in spite of obvious
internal logical contradiction in it and without any hope to solve these
contradictions (having Faith).
Humanity
is changing, a society is changing, understandable forms of presentation are
changing; hence, moral values are changing. Even moral values common to all
societies are changing.
Some
societies deal with this problem using revolutions. Through millennia in
Chinese society, regular revolutions were sweeping away an old codified moral
structure and replacing it with already emerged new one. Between revolutions,
the society was very stable.
In
many societies, there is a dedicated group, which monitors the state of society
and provides rules of behavior to the rest, who take them without critique.
Corruption of such group leads to a destruction of the society.
In
the Jewish culture, everyone is involved perpetually in understanding and
interpretation of current state of moral values and rules of behavior.
An
approach to moral values affects an entire approach to life.
When
one relies on defining of moral rules on someone else, one could take ready
rules, fortify them with a protection system (do not do something close to a
transgression and do not allow desires of transgression to rise)
and one is free in the rest of desires and experimentations. This is fun; this
is as prolonged childhood, when parents protect from mistakes. This approach
often leads to heightened respect for authorities, to support of governance,
where power is concentrated in hands of a few, and to authoritative forms of
management in all social aspects.
When
one takes on oneself defining of moral rules applicable to given circumstances,
one left childhood and entered adulthood, where actions are not controlled
externally, but could be very dangerous and one has to evaluate consequences of
every action. This perpetual evaluation leads to development of special mechanism
of thoughtful analysis and critique, which is applied to all aspects of life.
This leads to demands of proof and little respect for authorities and low
tolerance of despotic forms of governance. However, all this is achieved with a
special mechanism, which is particularly built in the Jewish culture.
In
the Jewish culture, many articles of Faith (rules taken without explanation in
spite of all current and future logical contradictions) are rules representing
moral values. This in itself carries a not so hidden logical contradiction.
To
benefit from an article of Faith (a commandment) one has to be close to a point
of transgression, otherwise there is no challenge to ones logical schema of
things, there is no opportunity to grow beyond this schema.
To
be a sane member of the society, one has to put some distance between oneself
and any moral transgression.
Where
the same commandment is an article of Faith and a moral rule, there is no
logical solution to this conundrum.
Every
time, finding a solution requires an escape from limitations of own logic. This
escape allows adjustment of understanding to reflect real state of society and
real state of humanity. After all, detection of this state should be a
non-trivial task.
This
kind of activity could be done only voluntarily.