Skip to main content
Yes, Virginia, There Really is Good and Evil

I think this is a question that nags at all of us:

Do you think that a basic knowledge of good vs. evil is inherent in our psyche (in a sort of Jungian way)? Or is it something we learn? I guess a question I have always had since childhood is how do you know if what you are doing is actually good?


The Rabbis tell us (Eruvin 100b):

אמר רבי יוחנן אילמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול וגזל מנמלה ועריות מיונ
R' Yochanan says, had the Torah not been given, we could learn modesty from the cat, [not to] steal from the ant, and fidelity from the dove.

Why wouldn't we learn not to be modest from a dog, stealing from ravens, and infidelity from the cat? On first glance, then, it seems like we *do* have some inner moral compass. We may not be able say what is good and evil, but we recognize it when we see it. As is often the case, first impressions are misleading. First, the Torah *has* been given and it could very well be that we have lost the natural sensitivity for good and evil once that happened. It is well known that college students now (who have grown up with calculators and computers) have less "feel" for numbers than generations who grew up working through calculations by hand (or slide rule... I actually miss my slide rule).

Moreover, the world is in balance. Everything is kept in a strict balance to allow us to make real, free choices about good and evil. Once the Torah was given (so that the good or evil of every deed and thought was more apparent), the inclination and ability to rationalize one's actions, thoughts, and even feelings was also increased. How many people smoke and rationalize that the data doesn't apply to them, or the research is faulty, or the fun of smoking is worth the risk of lung cancer and heart disease? There is also rationalizing that the evil isn't so bad; again basically rationalizing that while there is evil in the action, when you add it all up there is a net good.

On the other hand, there are also things that are uniquely human. Those things good not be learned from observing the world. Anything involving speech, for example, could not be learned from observing animals. You can't learn about murder from observing animals, either. Obviously you can't learn from animals anything about Shabbos, prayer, modes of dress, etc.

So I believe we are left with a situation that, practically speaking, one cannot "feel" right and wrong; rather, it must be learned. That is, there must be an external standard of right and wrong. Lest you think that it is not such a big deal, as long as you get things "mostly" good, consider the situation in the world before Lister. Surgeries were done in non-sterile conditions because no one knew any better. Imagine trying to tell a surgeon from them about these invisible things that can cause death in his patients unless he takes certain precautions, like using chemicals to wash his hands and instruments; he would think you were nuts. Yet that is the reality; there really are invisible things that are deadly.

The answer to the question, then, is that we have to learn about good and evil. Good and evil are real; you can't just make them up. Not learning -- and remaining in ignorance -- is not an option; because the Torah has, in fact, been given. Our sensitivity to spirituality has, in fact, been deadened. We need to learn, and we have no excuses. If not now, when?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...