tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post1670569194368217005..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: Jewish Ethics and the Question of Justice for Palestinians and Israelis -- Part OneJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-66339933152791788832007-09-02T12:38:00.000-07:002007-09-02T12:38:00.000-07:00I am a bit confused by your challenge. I wrote "Ge...I am a bit confused by your challenge. I wrote "General morality precedes Jewish morality." You suggest "General ethics takes precedence over Jewish ethics." Unless you think that morality and ethics are significantly different, I don't see your point.<BR/><BR/>Philosophers use the terms "morality" and "ethics" often interchangeably. I did not mean to imply that personal morality excludes societal ethics. If a person is honest, that means that he is honest in dealings with other people, and voila, you have society. <BR/><BR/>All this is a matter of definition of terms. When somebody talks about mussar and its literature, at least in a traditional context, he is not referring to halakha and its literature.<BR/><BR/>I would certainly not call musar "custom", which is minhag.<BR/><BR/>What I was polemicizing against was the attempt to reduce ethics to law and to claim that legal answers are the same as ethical answers.<BR/><BR/>Let me take a specific example: lying to a gentile. The question, "Is it permissible to lie to a gentile" is discussed within the halakhic tradition, but it is also discussed within the mussar literature, and the discussions are in many ways independent. I call the former a legal discussion and latter an ethical discussion, but of course, ethical intuitions (God's?) are imbedded within halakha, and one can take ethics in a very broad sense.<BR/><BR/>You and I both know that this is a very tricky topicJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-31290425994527426032007-09-02T09:41:00.000-07:002007-09-02T09:41:00.000-07:00I challenge the translation of "Derekh eretz kadma...I challenge the translation of "Derekh eretz kadmah le-Torah" into "General morality precedes Jewish morality" (as alias J. Haber has it in "Jewish Ethics and the Question of Justice for Palestinians - Part Two"):<BR/><BR/>Literally "The way of the earth ... is older than (kadmah in Aramaic) / precedes (makdiym) / has precedence over (diyh kediymah) ... the Torah / the Religious Law." A preferable translation might be "Natural law or general ethics takes precedence over religious law or Torah ethics". Certainly "general" ethics affects "Jewish" ethics as much as "Torah" ethics does. "Jewish" ethics and "Torah" ethics - as with all human ethics - must have a secure base in "the way of the earth" (natural law or general human ethics).<BR/><BR/>Alias J. H. distinguishes halakha (Jewish law) from musar (personal morality, which he says excludes societal ethics) Jewish ethics though is a wider idea encompassing societal ethics as well as Jewish religious law (halakha) and personal morality (musar). Historically the experience of living under Babylonian, Persian, Greek and then Roman law has greatly influenced Jewish societal ethics. Limiting the discussion to halakha and musar greatly reduces the concept of general Jewish ethics. If "the way of the earth" (natural law or general ethics) is "human ethics" and if Jewish ethics is no more than halakha and musar then you might as well say there is an absence of anything one could call "Jewish ethics" that is separate from law and custom ("halakha" and "musar") and instead of Jewish ethics we would understand ethics to be general "human ethics".<BR/><BR/>Rayrayberauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16029971144951526792noreply@blogger.com