Last week, my teenage son found himself in Rockland County, NY, with a flight from La Guardia in a few hours and no ride.
To be fair, he had a perfectly legitimate ride that decided to leave early and unexpectedly, leaving him stranded. He was staying at my brother-in-law and sister-in-law’s home, and he called me to brainstorm about how to get to the airport. Well, I’m a fan of independence in kids, so I told my son that he could take a bus to Port Authority and from there take another bus to the airport. We realized that time was tight and I agreed that he should instead take a cab from Port Authority to the airport. My son wasn’t thrilled about these plans, but he agreed nevertheless.
Ten minutes later I get a phone call from my brother-in-law.
“Ruchi, Sara is going to drive him to the airport.”
“What??” I said. “That’s crazy. It’s an hour without traffic! And all the kids are home! And there’s no need for it! Really, he’s fine!” (Why does anyone bother with how long a NY drive will take without traffic? How is that information even relevant?)
“Oh, no, she says it’s perfect, because since the kids are off and they have nothing to do, this will be a great activity! A project! A trip!”
This, then is my sister-in-law. When she does you a favor (a huge one), she makes you feel as if you are doing her a favor by acquiescing. She’s truly something.
Now I ask you a question. My sister-in-law is a really, really good person. But I believe that her religiosity, her belief in chessed (kindness), that God put an opportunity in her path for good, that she will never lose out by doing a good deed, makes it much easier and more satisfying to act altruistically.
What do you think?
I think that the idea that being of service to others as a central value can exist without religion. We Jews and religious people in general don't have a lock on it, by any means.
I think that Judaism and other religions can be good at making us more aware of others and their needs and at placing a value on helping others by making it a positive commandment or enduring value. (If we are open to the possibility.)
I think Judaism can amplify this because we live in communities, which are in essence small towns within larger towns, so we know our neighbors and we know when they are in need. That isn't always the case in many people's lives. And even in the larger Jewish community, we have this concept of kol aravim zeh la'zeh, that we are all responsible for one another. There is this intrinsic sense of being tied to other Jews, even people we don't know and will never meet and having an obligation to help them.
I want to clarify something right at the beginning. I said I thought religion made it easier. Not that religious people have a monopoly. We all know that's not true. There are kind atheists and cruel religionists.
You write: "But I believe that her religiosity, her belief in chessed (kindness), that God put an opportunity in her path for good, that she will never lose out by doing a good deed, makes it much easier and more satisfying to act altruistically."
Does that mean you think it would be harder for her to act in a kind manner if she didn't believe in God or the religious concept of chessed? Do you think kind atheists are the norm or an abberation?
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. I do know that for me, it's hard to get motivated to do the right thing, and when I remind myself of religious concepts it becomes much easier for me to do good things.
I would be interested in hearing how people motivate themselves (say using the airport example above) to push themselves to do good things that they don't want to do if religion doesn't mean anything to them.
I think it depends in part on personality. I think people have a natural desire to give but also a fear of not having enough for themselves. Some people have more of that fear than others. If you have the fear, then the belief that you won't lose out or that you'll gain in some other way certainly makes it easier.
I think all humans tend naturally toward selfish.
On non-religious motivators to doing good things I don't want to do: There is a sense of "should" apart from religion, a 'should' that demands acquiescence even when it's not appealing. Do Judaism's many rules reinforce a kind of habit of obedience that might translate to obeying that sense of 'should' with less rebellion, do you think?
not really. I'm a total people-pleaser and I really hate the feeling of letting people down, of doing something that doesn't make them happy. This can cause problems. I joke that I feel bad when my GPS tells me it's "recalculating" because I ignored its directions.
So my behavior here has nothing to do with religion, I don't think. It's a personality thing.
Sbw: I think yes. MP: interesting. I'm thinking about that.
As it says (in Pirkei Avot, maybe?), train a child in the way he should go. Certainly one element of the many rules of O Judaism is to create the habit of obedience, the habit of charitable thought, the habit of regular prayer, etc. Does it produce "less rebellion"? To some degree, but then some people can't accept the rules and regulations and rebel whole-heartedly, rejecting the whole system.
Ruchi, think of a 3-year-old who is extremely generous and is happy to give away lots of things. That's the natural desire to give. The catch is that the 3-year-old doesn't really understand that she won't have them after she gives them away. Our selfishness comes in when we do understand that.
When I hear about amazingly giving people, I think, "Wow. I would love to be like that." But in my life, I tend to think I can't afford it, or I don't have time, or I don't have the energy. When you hear of someone who needs half a million dollars for life-saving medical care, don't you want to give them the whole amount? Obviously, you can't. Even if you have half a million dollars, you can't give it all away. But don't you wish you could give everyone what they need without any hardship to yourself?
But then I also think about the 3-year-old who says, "MINE! MINE! MINE!" And of the adults who sort of act that way too.
I wasn't suggesting that people aren't selfish. Of course we are. I was just pointing out that the desire to give exists as well. And I definitely agree with you that if we think we'll gain by giving, it's easier to overcome our selfishness.
I think an individual's balance between altruism and self-centeredness is a matter of personality and upbringing. Religion may provide tools, language, and incentive, but fundamentally it is a matter of personality and values. Just as some people are naturally extroverts while others are introverts, and some are optimists while others are pessimists, I think some people thrive on giving to others. It brings them pleasure to be helpful, regardless of a religious justification or reward.
Tools. I like that.
So what other tools are there, for those who don't thrive on giving, as you put it?
What other tools are there for those who don't thrive on giving?
Civil rights movements of various types. Social action. A person who doesn't thrive on giving still has a conscience, of course. Also, people may be willing and able to help causes financially, even if they're not going out to work in soup kitchens on Sunday mornings. So, charity.
I am a little surprised by Miriam's comment because I figured as an O she would think that Judaism in particular does give people something of an edge on good behavior. What would be the point of being O if you don't believe that it makes you a better person?
Usually, people get involved in civil rights movements that motivate them. I mean causes that you're not naturally drawn to (interpersonal annoying favors, for example).
Well, there's always the motivation that if you do annoying favors for others, they'll do favors for you. Nothing like the quid pro quo.
Empathy, guilt, societal expectations, inner conscience, peer pressure, hope of future reciprocity… All serve to motivate people to do things for others.
There was no specific mitzvah directing your SIL to drive your son to the airport. She did it because she could imagine being in his shoes, or because she truly saw it as a wonderful excuse to spend time with her kids and her nephew, or because it beat the prospect of spending those two hours washing dishes and folding laundry. In other words, to her it wasn't a "huge interpersonal annoying favor".
Driving to the airport in LA is as big a deal as in NY – an hour each way without traffic (and that only happens a 2 a.m.) I have always been happy to pick up relatives at the airport; my ex-H always refuses. I used to pick up his relatives as well as mine, because I enjoyed that chance for a private visit, and didn't mind the time spent in the car. I don't think he has less of a sense of the importance of chessed as a mitzvah than I do, but to me the cost of this act was minimal, while to him it was too big to take on.
Of course, there are times we do favors for those who are unable to return the favor. The paraprofessionals in my kids' schools (who are paid so little) go way, way beyond the call of duty in meeting the kids' special needs – for example, they go and buy my kid kosher cookies when there's a party, out of their own pocket. They search for just the right music CD to calm my autistic child, then make sure they let me know what's working. I don't know if any of them are religious or not, but they do it for the kids, because they have a connection.
Your SIL was wonderful to drive your son to the airport. If she received a random call about a neighbor's nephew who needed a ride to the airport, would she have reacted the same way? Maybe. What about a stranger from outsider her community – like a really random stranger? Would she have jumped on a dime to run to the airport? Note – I'm not criticizing her if she wouldn't have! I can't think of anyone who would. But she does have a connection with your son, and the ride to the airport was an opportunity for the cousins to spend extra time together.
Miriambyk, there was a specific mitzvah. Chessed. You're assuming she had her own reasons, which may well be true. Chances are her reasons were a whole complex mix of motivations. I'm going to guess a part of her didn't want to go.
Tesyaa, those are good examples. Do you think those professionals are self-propelled to behave so beautifully, or need to push themselves to do so? Not detracting from the beauty either way.
Is "chessed" a specific mitzvah, or a concept? Giving ma'aser (tithing from income) is a specific mitzvah. But chessed? It is an endless endeavor, a philosophy, an approach, a world view more than a specific task that can be quantified. Is it part of the Rambam's list of 613 mitzvot? (Genuine question, coming from lack of knowledge, not a challenge.)
Regarding the paraprofessionals, I'm sure that whatever they do beyond their job description, is because they want to. That's why I mentioned that they're really paid very little – there's no career advancement for them, for example, from doing an unnecessary favor for a special-needs child.
Like I said, I don't know how many of them are religious believers of any sort, so I don't know if that's their motivation. I think their motivation comes from their connection with the children. That connection would make them more likely to help a random autistic child they encounter out of school, too – just like Orthodox Jews are willing to help any Orthodox Jew in need, even a stranger. It's the connection to the individual, or by extension, the group, that makes people motivated to help.
Here's an example that I think could be empirically studied: people who donate a kidney to a truly random stranger. There's no payoff other than the feeling of doing something great to help someone. I wonder if a study could be done of how many such donors factor religious belief into their decision. I know you weren't looking for a statistical study, but that's me, the math person. 🙂
I know that this whole topic of why people act altruistically is a topic of study for psychologists and behaviorists. If someone had the inclination to dig online, there might be some interesting published research about the connection of religion to charitable behavior.
Here are two kidney donation links referencing religion:
http://www.kidneymitzvah.com/AboutChayaLipschutz.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/4/184.full
Here is an article with a book review listing other reasons:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/02/altruistic-kidney-donations-are-rise-some-voice-ethical-concerns
http://www.amazon.com/Organ-Donor-Experience-Samaritans-Altruism/dp/1442211156
Really interesting, MP. Thanks.
Miriambyk, the mishna says, "These are the things (mitzvot) that have no set amount: …and acts of kindness." (Torah study is another.)
(Another mishna says: "These are the things that a person benefits from in this lifetime, but the principal reward remains intact for him in the World to Come: honoring parents, acts of kindness, getting up early and going out at night to study Torah, hospitality, visiting the sick, helping a [needy] bride get married, paying final respects at a funeral, and concentration/intent in prayer, bringing peace between friends and spouses, and the study of Torah is equal to them all."
Oh, I see I quoted the same mishna below! I always thought that meant that you can fulfill the mitzvah of chessed with a little, or a lot. Unlike the shiur of matza at the seder…
I thought it meant there's no limit – the more, the merrier.
I think it means both — it is not quantifiable. In the example at hand, your SIL did an act of chessed, but if she had declined, she would not have been doing wrong.
Isn't it both? If you do a little, you've done a mitzvah. If you do a lot, you've done more of the mitzvah. In contrast, if you just eat a tiny crumb of matzah, you haven't done a mitzvah at all, whereas a tiny bit of chessed is still a mitzvah. And if you eat an entire pound of matzah, you haven't accomplished any more mitzvah-wise than if you just ate the required amount, but with chessed, the more you do, the more mitzvah you've done.
I was thinking to agree with your thesis, that being religious makes one more tuned in to helping others. Then I remembered my own wonderful SIL, who is just incredibly, incredibly giving without being religiously observant at all. This is just the way she's wired. I think personality is the main determinant of how giving one is.
Perhaps people who are naturally giving are more drawn to religion than others? I don't know if that's true either, but as a "math person", I'm always interested in the difference between correlation and causation.
Nice to see a couple of posts from you this week!
Also, I'm no longer a religious believer, and I don't see a difference in the amount of time I'm motivated to help others now, versus before. I'm not the most chessed oriented person, but I try to help others when I have the time or expertise to do so. I don't let religion/belief enter the equation.
Ruchi, the way that you put several things together right at the end of the post makes things complex. I'm not sure whether they don't each in their individual way indicate different elements of motivation, some maybe more tied to religion than others.
Ruchi: I believe that her religiosity, her belief in chessed (kindness), that God put an opportunity in her path for good, that she will never lose out by doing a good deed, makes it much easier and more satisfying to act altruistically.
My parsing:
1. Belief in kindness as a value, a deep one, could exist apart from religiosity and even belief in God.
2. Believing that God put the opportunity there to do good is definitely about God and a kind of expectation that he must have.
3. Belief that one will never lose out by doing a good deed is in my view a BIG one here. It seems to imply God and the cosmic accountant (I think Larry invented that). I think the heart of it is that anxiety is allayed, worries about what else one should be doing, about what is priority in a certain moment. It has a theodicy that I would like to share but am unable to.
4. Easier and more satisfying to act altruistically: 'easy' and 'more satisfying' could be totally separate from and even opposed to each other. #3 shows why it's easier. I think you don't need God to find it satisfying.
5. "Religiosity" to me in this context means following O rules. I am not at all sure that following those rules makes people more kind. You, Ruchi, definitely have a very kindness-oriented interpretation, but other Os out there [and not on this blog] don't necessarily seem to.
You're right on all counts. For me #3 is hugely motivating (which is not quite as altruisitic as I'd like to be one day). I don't actually mean religiosity in Orthodox or even Jewish terms. I'd include believers in God of all varieties.
Here's a more thoughtful answer. Kindness as a value is very nebulous. How much, how often, what kind? Any parameters? Each individual is left to figure it out. Judaism has specific guidance. And while you don't need God to find it satisfying, it adds an extra dimension of satisfaction on top of all the other reasons one would do good deeds.
How much, how often, what kind? Any parameters? Each individual is left to figure it out. Judaism has specific guidance.
But every morning, the davening includes "Elu dvarim she'ein lahem shiur", and I don't have to tell you that gemilus chassadim falls under that category. Am I missing something?
what is the specific guidance your sister drew upon in making her decision here?
I honestly don't know, since I didn't ask her and the whole conversation was pretty short. Based on what I know about her, I'm going to figure she used some/any of the following:
1. God treats me the way I treat others, hence I should go beyond what's expected of me.
2. God wants me to greet every person with a smile (per Ethics of the Fathers), and therefore, not only am I going to do this deed, I'm going to do it cheerfully.
3. The mishnah I quoted above touch on the limitlessness of chessed.
4. Charity begins at home and therefore doing a favor for a family member comes before doing a favor for a stranger.
There may be more if I think harder. That's just off the top of my head.
Thanks tesyaa 🙂 I don't know that religious people are more naturally tuned in at all. I was just saying that if you are religious you have a tool at your disposal to help you get motivated to do kind things that you don't feel like doing.
Your sis-in-law sounds awesome. I'm sure she would have great things to say about you as well! I completely agree with your sentiments… Not only do we have the mitzvot to push us beyond our own selfish motivations, but great Jewish thinkers over the centuries have presented inspiring arguments for acting altruistically. I try to be mindful of Maimonides quote on how any one act could tip the scales of the entire world in one direction or another. It is also for this reason that I wear my Hebrew necklace; I like putting pressure on myself to represent the Jewish people well, even on the train in the morning when I haven't had enough caffeine. (So hard!)
Thats sweet 🙂 And yeah…great points.
Kate, somehow I'm sure you were a pleasant, giving person even before Judaism came into your life!
I don't know. Kate, in your original post here a few weeks ago you said that as you became more exposed to religion you found that it did transform you.
Maybe I'm mistaken about Kate. For me, as a young teenager entering the Orthodox community, I didn't find Judaism changing my personality. I had a strong desire to be a "good person", and I thought that following religious rules was part of being a "good person". The goal of being a "good person" came first.
SBW's comment above (in response to my original post) just showed up in my feed, and wasn't there earlier, so I'll address it here.
SBW wrote: "I am a little surprised by Miriam's comment because I figured as an O she would think that Judaism in particular does give people something of an edge on good behavior. What would be the point of being O if you don't believe that it makes you a better person?"
Do I think that being O makes one a better person? Not necessarily. I think that as a system, a method of creating a society, a way to pass values to successive generations it has that potential. But human beings fail to achieve that potential as often as not. As discussed in the comments to the previous OOTOB post, the "big three" that are used to define someone as O are generally keeping Shabbat, keeping kosher, and keeping the laws of family purity. Do I think that following those rules makes one a better person? Definitely not. I am not a better person than someone else just because I keep kosher. Because it is a "mitzvah bein adam l'makom", a commandment between person and Gd, designed to foster a stronger relationship with Gd. There are plenty of other mitzvot that do translate into being a better person, the ones categorized as "bein adam l'chaveroh", between man and his fellow man, but those are not unique to Judaism (although historically we get the credit for introducing many of these ideas).
So what is the point of being O if I don't think it makes me a better person? Because I think it adds meaning and purpose and structure to my life. Because I believe that I inherited a set of guidelines for life that Gd expects me to follow. Because I hope that I will be rewarded in some incomprehensible way in the future for following the rules.
I am far more cynical than Ruchi is about whether practicing O Judaism makes for better people.
Miriam,
Do you mean "whether practicing O Judaism makes for better people" or whether observing the mitzvot makes for better people? I think there's a difference.
Since I think Orthodox Judaism is just a human technique to make sense of forms of belief and practice, I think it's an inherently flawed way of dividing people, as regular readers here know. So instead let's talk about whether observing the commandments in the Torah make for better people.
Here's Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato in "The Way Of God," which is largely based on kabbalistic concepts:
"The soul strengthens itself through these observances, and the body is potentially enlightened, even though its enlightenment cannot be immediately realized. What man therefore earns in this manner is a potential state of perfection, and at the proper time, this potential is realized.
…The purpose of each commandment is either to allow man to earn and incorporate in himself a particular level of true excellence, or to remove an area of deficiency and darkness. This is accomplished through doing what the commandments require and avoiding what they forbid."
(Me again: Here's the caveat, and why it keeps talking about "potential" – and why keeping mitzvot is not a guarantee of better people.)
"The nature and details of each individual commandment, however, are based on all the aspects of man's true nature and character, as well as that of the necessary perfection. Each thing then has its conditions and limits as required for man's attaining this perfection."
In short, observing mitzvot has the potential to radically alter a person, but it depends on his character/intent/awareness.
Can you perfect yourself without them? In some ways, sure. Can you avoid perfection even with them? Absolutely.
Questions:
Miriam: "Do I think that following those rules makes one a better person? Definitely not. I am not a better person than someone else just because I keep kosher. . . . . There are plenty of other mitzvot that do translate into being a better person, the ones categorized as "bein adam l'chaveroh", between man and his fellow man."
It looks like you mean "better person" as in "kinder to other people". Ruchi is quoting a source that indicates that doing even the commandments that are person-God and not person-person makes people "better", maybe not in terms of kindness but in terms of perfection of the soul. For MIriam those commandments are about that relationship to God, not as much about the perfecting of the soul. Am I identifying the difference properly? Is Ruchi's view indeed much more kabbalistic? Which I thought was not so much part of the Yeshivish tradition that Ruchi comes from?
I think that's a good distinction. When I say "a better person" I'm not just talking about the interpersonal stuff that people immediately think of when they say "a better person." I'm talking about soul-correction even where it doesn't impact others. Of course the interpersonal stuff is a huge part of it too.
Another important distinction that I want to make is when I say that I want to be "a better person," I don't mean "better than others." I mean "better than I used to be" or "better than I would be without the benefit of mitzvot."
I agree with both of Ruchi's comments here. I especially like these two statements: "In short, observing mitzvot has the potential to radically alter a person, but it depends on his character/intent/awareness." and "Another important distinction that I want to make is when I say that I want to be "a better person," I don't mean "better than others." I mean "better than I used to be" or "better than I would be without the benefit of mitzvot.""
I guess I started my response from the position of SBW's original phrase, "giving an edge on good behavior." While Torah and mitzvot have the potential to create better behavior, and I believe that is their intended purpose, I am jaded by the tremendous reality of people who follow the letter of the law but miss the spirit. That is when I say it comes down to inherent personality and instilled values.
And yeah, I am not as spiritually oriented as Ruchi. I come at all of this from a more pragmatic, historical, and intellectual perspective. One of my failings that I need to work on, I'm afraid.
Really helpful clarifications, Ruchi. Your post set up the question in terms of doing kindness to others, but as the thread developed it's apparent that for you it's more about improving yourself, soulwise, and not about comparing who is better than whom or even how much kindness is done (since kindness is just one kind of mitzva among others). So kindness for you isn't kindness for its own sake, it's about improving your own soul (which is why you mention this isn't as altruistic as you'd like?).
But you wrote that for your s-i-l religiosity "makes it much easier and more satisfying to act altruistically." And you ask how others motivate themselves to act altruistically in the absence of that faith and the commandments to do so. So isn't it a little bit about comparing people to people, and not just myself to myself-but-better? Isn't it about how religiosity makes it easier and more satisfying to religious people to act altruistically?
In fact I'm more interested in the latter question, maybe for that social-science interest that Miriam refers to. Yes it would be easier for me to be altruistic if I believed I'll get paid back and won't lose anything and it's God's hope for me. But what does that mean for altruism among non-religious vs. religious? Actually for the non-religious it might weirdly mean that kindness is even MORE altruistic because there is no imagination of a reward or a divine accountant keeping track. It might be MORE about kindness that doesn't even do my soul any good (if I don't believe in the soul).
Does that question make sense?
Miriam, I really appreciate the pragmatic/historical/intellectual perspective. I think you identify as "Mod O". From what you say here, it's more of a "postmod O" (which I mean as a compliment). You do all of these things and pay careful attention to your observance, but WITHOUT the kind of guarantee Ruchi feels as to improvement of soul, God caring about each little thing, etc. That seems in a way a harder path (no offense Ruchi). It's kind of a tightrope without a net? Of course you still believe it's God's commandments, but you don't have that 360 degree sense of soul/God's will, from what I gather. Or maybe I misunderstand.
LOL! Yes, SBW, you nailed it. I *want* to believe as fully as Ruchi does, but I don't. I know/believe completely that Gd created the world, established the Jews as a special people, and gave us a set of rules to live by. I struggle with the idea of Gd micromanaging our lives, paying attention to every detail, setting opportunities in our path, etc. I have no doubt Gd — by definition — is capable of it, but am not sure that it actually happens that way.
I also lack Ruchi's certainty in the "mesorah", the holiness of the tradition in all of its applications. I see more of a historical trail, of people interpreting the laws and making rulings from a human perspective. I actually just read a very interesting article that mentioned a specific case where Rav Moshe Feinstein, the greatest rabbinic authority of the previous generation, ruled one way, but various political pressures led to the opposite opinion being accepted as the halacha.
I hope that doing all this benefits me at a cosmic level, but I am not certain. I guess you could say I am hedging my bets in the way that makes the most sense to me. 🙂
If I may ask, what makes it possible for you to firmly believe that God established the Jews as special and gave us the rules, but NOT the holiness of the whole tradition and God as micromanager? Or I guess I mean, what does that FEEL like?
I can imagine believing none of it, or all of it, or being skeptical about most of it, or pretty sure about most of it. But what is it to you to firmly believe in some elements and not in other parts? And it sounds like you feel like you SHOULD believe firmly in all of it like Ruchi does. Where does that sense of "should" come from?
As always, good questions that force me to parse out my thoughts more carefully. I love these conversations!
There is a school of thought that Gd created the world and used to be much more intimately involved in it (like during the Biblical era), but at some point pulled back, leaving us flawed humans to our own devices. I admit to being intellectually lazy and perhaps dishonest, that I have absorbed this philosophy second hand and can't point you to the sources, the rabbis that have developed it more fully. But it is not an original approach on my part.
As to what led me to this middle ground, it is a matter of what I see in the world around me and what I've experienced in my life. I am mesmerized and awed by the wonders of creation. I cannot fathom the universe being randomly generated. Science is too exact, too complex, too PERFECT to have a source other than a perfect, complete, incomprehensible God. Scientists learn more every day about how it works, but none of them could ever fabricate it from scratch.
I also see a tiny, beleaguered group of people that have somehow not only survived 2000 years as outcasts, but have had an incontrovertible influence on human history. How and why have this small nation, always less than one percent of the world, made such an impact? On the one hand our ideas have formed the cornerstone of Western civilization, and on the other hand we have been despised to an irrational degree. So what I was taught, that the Jews are a special nation, makes sense to me.
And then the downside — why do bad things happen to good people? How could Gd let X or Y or Z happen? How come a life of observing the mitzvot doesn't guarantee being a good person? I've promised Ruchi I'd keep my cynicism and bitterness off the blog — it is her platform, not mine — so I won't give examples. But given a choice between not believing in Gd at all or believing that Gd has removed himself from the daily workings of the world, I choose the latter. Some days I am able to accept a third alternative, that Gd is intimately involved and all is truly good but beyond my comprehension. That would be Ruchi's approach, I think. But most days I see too much suffering, too many flawed people, too many corrupt "frum" Jews, to swallow that.
As for the "should" – it comes from knowing that, as you pointed out, it is easier in some ways to accept the whole package. And knowing that there are a lot of people much wiser and more learned than I who do. There are many people in my life who are happier because they put it all in Gd's hands, so to speak. I have friends both Christian and Jewish telling me to trust Gd, have faith, etc. And maybe that would bring me greater inner peace. But intellectually I can't cross that divide [yet].
Miriam,
I'd so be so interested to learn the source(s) of that philosophy, if you could track it down.
SBW: In terms of *motivation* I am curious about how one group compares to the other. In terms of end result, we can never compare, really, because (I believe) only God really knows the struggle/resistance that exists within us and therefore what constitutes greatness for any individual.
SBW, you ask: "Actually for the non-religious it might weirdly mean that kindness is even MORE altruistic because there is no imagination of a reward or a divine accountant keeping track. It might be MORE about kindness that doesn't even do my soul any good (if I don't believe in the soul)."
Not only does the question make perfect sense, it's dealt with at length in Jewish sources. There's a teaching: "Greater is he who is commanded and acts, than he who acts of his own accord." Put in today's terminology, the Talmud is saying that if you tell your daughter to clean up her room, and she complies, that's a greater act than if she thought by herself to clean up her room. Why? Because as soon as someone tells you to do something, you usually experience an inner resistance in your quest for autonomy. Overcoming that resistance is an act of growth and greatness.
As far as altruism is concerned, another teaching says, "Don't be like the servant who serves his master for the sake of getting a reward." In other words, the ideal altruistic/great way to behave is to do it because God told you to, not because you thunk it up on your own, yet, paradoxically motivated by concern for others as opposed to your future reward.
Here's a third teaching to make you feel better about being far away from that ideal (at least I am): "A person should always do the right thing, even for the wrong reasons, because from that he can grow into the ideal way of behavior."
*Ring* Class is over. Recess!
For a non-Jewish view of the idea that the Tanach shows Hashem's gradual withdrawal from direct affairs, see Jack Miles' God: A Biography. For a heterodox Jewish view, see Richard Elliot Friedman's The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery I'm not aware of any Orthodox sources for this belief – which doesn't mean there aren't any!
Thanks Larry.
Incidentally, all, my little joke at the end was not intended to end the conversation. I just felt like I was lecturing a bit so wanted to lighten the mood.
I'm always game for more. The emphasis you indicate on obedience over autonomy is such a contrast to Protestant (in my understanding) and modern (not unrelated to Protestantism) ideas about morality, where doing something on your own is better than following a command or rule. It's hard to get my mind into the idea that obedience is higher. And you have emphasized elsewhere the importance of free will. Are you meaning that free will is required to FREELY follow the commands? What other way is there, out of fear? Isn't fear ok for O Jews as a reason to follow commands?
Free will is required to freely decide to submit yourself to God's will. You could, of course, choose to 1)ignore Him or 2)do things because you want to, not because He told you to, or 3)listen to Him in the hopes of reward 4)listen to him out of love 5)listen to Him out of reverence (a translation I prefer to "fear").
Fear/reverence is an interesting subject. I prefer the latter since it's minus the negative aspect. Reverence of God and love for God are two aspects that are necessary to the relationship, much as a child ought to both love and have a healthy respect for parents, dissimilar to the relationship with, say, a friend. But love is considered the highest level.
In any case, fear/reverence still wouldn't negate free will. The only thing that would negate it is if evil would cease to exist and it became stupidly obvious that listening to God is the only choice. Then you wouldn't have free will.