S/O Derache’ha Darchei No’am

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Judaism

Previous 1 2 3 16 17 18 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:29 pm

daagahminayin wrote:

The word “morality” comes from the Latin “mores” meaning customs or proper behavior in society. By definition, morals change with time and place.

I think it’s possible to say that the commandment to kill all of Amalek was moral/not immoral for the time and place it was commanded but not for now. Then, it would have been in accordance with the Jewish people’s innate sense of right and wrong, justice, and practical safety and survival considerations. Now, it would not.

So killing the babies and the animals then was OK as a practical safety and survival consideration?

daagahminayin

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:39 pm

malki2 wrote:

So killing the babies and the animals then was OK as a practical safety and survival consideration?

It would seem so. The idea being to completely obliterate a nation classed as more evil than any other so that it would be impossible for it to regenerate. Shaul spared Agag, King of Amalek, who went on to spawn the ancestor of Haman.

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:40 pm

malki2 wrote:

So killing the babies and the animals then was OK as a practical safety and survival consideration?

As I said before, far be it from me to judge and condemn events that took place thousands of years ago. At a time when humanity in general was in survival mode and it was common practice to kill innocents in war.
That said, yes, genocide IS wrong. And I can’t imagine ever changing my stance on that.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:45 pm

Zehava wrote:

You can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth.
1. Was Mechiyas Amalek Genocide?
2. Was it wrong?
3. The Rambam clearly says that Mechiyas Amalek is not common practice. Even the bloodthirsty Jewish army didn’t typically kill babies and animals. So how do you justify that? Are you calling that immoral? Please answer.

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:21 pm

malki2 wrote:

I don’t know. I wasn’t there. It would be arrogant of me to weigh in on something that took place in a time period that I can’t fathom.
All I know is the now. And right now, to exterminate an entire nation would be genocide. And I don’t see how that would change in the future. I sure hope we won’t be going backwards.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:28 pm

Zehava wrote:

So now you’re “not sure” if G-d’s commandment to Shaul was immoral? That’s nice. At least you’re not arrogant.

Last edited by malki2 on Fri, May 15 2020, 3:32 pm; edited 2 times in total

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:30 pm

malki2 wrote:

So now you’re “not sure” if G-d’s commandment to Shaul was immoral? That’s nice. At least you’re not arrogant.

I’ve been consistent throughout this entire thread

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:33 pm

Zehava wrote:

I’ve been consistent throughout this entire thread

Correct. You’ve been consistently against genocide, even when it was commanded outright by Hashem.

amother

Dodgerblue

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:36 pm

BadTichelDay wrote:

One who thinks in his heart that he is morally "better" than Hashem or that some mitzvot aren't truly moral, can't serve Hashem wholeheartedly because he has set up his own morality as an alternative to Hashem's command and has thereby turned his own morality into a kind of idol.
.

I have a question. We have a lot of instances where people "questioned" Hashem's verdict, decree, morality, etc. Avraham "argued" with Hashem against destroying Sdom and Amorah. Moshe "argued" with Hashem regarding a few things - babies being put in bricks, Hashem's punishment of klal Yisroel after the eigel, etc. Yonah didn't want to go to Ninveh.

I mean, I know none of us are on this level, but in each of those situations, it doesn't look like Hashem was mad about the engagement regarding morality. Even with Yonah, He didn't like murder him outright, He arranged things so that Yonah would come to understand Hashem's point of view regarding the redemption of Ninveh in a context he could understand.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 3:44 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

That’s a very good question. Along those same lines, you can ask how is it there such a thing as Tefilah, when we are basically asking Hashem to change his mind. I think that the answer basically is that even Hashem Himself works with Midas Hadim and Midas Harachim. So what we are doing, and what the Avon did, was to appeal to Hashem’s Midas Harachim. But that is not the same thing at all as questioning the morality of a Mitzvah.

amother

Dodgerblue

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:08 pm

Zehava wrote:

I’ve been consistent throughout this entire thread

I also want to point out, Zehava, that our idea of morality very much changes with regard to our experience. In my line of work, I've come across women who were sweet, angelic, kind people who were brutally victimized. They now have fantasies of murdering their aggressor/rapist, etc. Fauda is a show (I haven't watched this season yet, it's too much for me) that really shows how violence begets violence. The child of the murdered terrorist/innocent bystander grows up twisted and vows to murder more people, the people killing these terrorists themselves become changed, and become the victims themselves. They consider their killing perfectly justified.

If morality changes based on your life circumstances, on your country, your family, your mazal, your gender, your nature, then how can we trust it? If morality isn't concrete (do we perform the death penalty? Are we allowed to kill in self defense? Is all abortion always wrong?), if it changes with the times, then how do we trust what we know to be true?

You say killing babies is wrong. I say that killing babies isn't always wrong. Killing a baby that threatens the life of a mother is not wrong. So now you move the goalpost and say that killing all babies is wrong, and it's hard to argue with that. But can you imagine a particular set of circumstances where it WOULDN'T be wrong? Like, say, a whole zombie infestation where all people in a particular area, women, men, and children, all accidentally drank zombie-parasite-infested waters and now want to murder their way through humanity? Imagine it. All babies, all women, all children, all with their red eyes and their growing, sharp teeth, and they want to eat other people and spread their infection.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but what if, instead of a zombie-parasite, we imagine a spiritual parasite instead, unleashed to murder humanity, wouldn't that be the same?

The point is two-fold. If our morality changes, then what is it, really? And two: If God himself says we don't murder Amalek as a nation anymore, then what is the issue? How does that NOT align with your sensibilities, and what are you fighting, exactly?

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:14 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

Yeah all I said was, that if made to choose between religion, and my convictions against murder, I’d rather go to hell than kill.

chicco

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:19 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

There's a difference between arguing about something Hashem wanted to do in a moment vs what is in the Torah, which has been decided and is always and forever. In the cases you mention above, those were unique circumstances that were based on personal relationships. Hashem invites us to be a player in what happens in our lives. Part of that is engaging Him and sharing with Him and pleading our case. That process is enough to change the circumstance from being relevant in the first place, and reality can shift to accommodate for that change. We are lucky enough that Hashem values our input. We even have that with Halacha interpretation- lo Bashamayim he.

amother

Saddlebrown

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:38 pm

Killing is always wrong, even in circumstances where it's the least wrong of all the available options.

amother

Dodgerblue

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:41 pm

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

Killing is always wrong, even in circumstances where it's the least wrong of all the available options.

Source?

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:50 pm

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

Killing is always wrong, even in circumstances where it's the least wrong of all the available options.

I guess that’s the argument against death penalty, which not everyone agrees with. I just don’t know how anyone can argue that killing innocents is okay because of their race/nationality.

amother

Saddlebrown

Fri, May 15 2020, 4:51 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

Source?

That's not how it works in a discussion of ethics.

amother

Dodgerblue

Sun, May 17 2020, 2:11 am

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

That's not how it works in a discussion of ethics.

So you’re saying that ethically, it’s correct to let a serial killer with a gun murder your child than to kill them instead? Because killing is always wrong?

If you’re saying killing is always wrong, then you’re saying self-defense is wrong. Always.

amother

Saddlebrown

Sun, May 17 2020, 2:33 am

Letting someone kill is even more wrong.

Zehava

Sun, May 17 2020, 2:40 am

It goes into the classic conundrum of if you’re driving with your family in the car and there’s a baby on the road in front of you but if you swerve you and your family die, what is the ethically right thing to do.

Page 17 of 18

Previous 1 2 3 16 17 18 Next