Grok says:
In Judaism, the question of whether something is good because God says so ties into deep theological and philosophical currents, particularly the Euthyphro dilemma's Jewish analogs. The tradition doesn't uniformly settle on one answer, but it leans heavily on divine command theory while also engaging meta-ethical reflection.
Divine Command and Goodness
For many Jewish thinkers, God's commandments (mitzvot) define moral goodness, especially in traditional streams like Orthodoxy. The Torah, as God's revealed will, is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. For example, in Deuteronomy 6:18, Jews are instructed to "do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord." This suggests that God's will shapes morality. Medieval philosopher Saadia Gaon (9th-10th century) argued that the mitzvot are inherently rational and good, but their authority stems from God's command, not human reasoning alone. Without divine revelation, humans might misjudge what’s moral.
However, this doesn't mean goodness is arbitrary. Maimonides (12th century), a towering figure, suggested in his Guide for the Perplexed that God's commandments align with rational principles and the betterment of society, even if humans can't always grasp the full reasoning (e.g., laws like kashrut). The mitzvot have purposes—some clear (ethical laws like "do not steal"), others mystical or disciplinary (like ritual purity). So, while God's say-so is paramount, it's not seen as whimsical; it reflects a divine wisdom that may transcend human understanding.
Meta-Ethical Tradition in Judaism
Judaism does have a meta-ethical tradition, though it's less systematized than in Western philosophy. It grapples with questions about the nature of morality, the source of ethical obligation, and the relationship between divine will and human reason. Here are key strands:
- Rationalist Stream: Thinkers like Maimonides and, later, Hermann Cohen (19th-20th century) argued that morality aligns with reason. Maimonides believed humans could discern basic moral truths (e.g., murder is wrong) through intellect, but divine law refines and perfects these insights. Cohen, in his neo-Kantian Jewish philosophy, saw ethics as universal and rational, with Judaism’s laws embodying these principles in a covenantal framework.
- Mystical/Kabbalistic Stream: In Kabbalah, morality connects to cosmic order. The Zohar and later Hasidic thought frame mitzvot as aligning human actions with divine emanations (sefirot). Goodness isn’t just God’s decree but a way to repair the world (tikkun olam) and unify divine forces. This adds a metaphysical layer to ethics, where human acts ripple through spiritual realms.
- Existential and Modern Perspectives: Modern Jewish thinkers like Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas shift toward relational ethics. Buber’s I-Thou framework sees moral goodness in authentic encounters between humans and God or others. Levinas, heavily meta-ethical, posits that ethics begins with responsibility to the Other, rooted in Jewish notions of covenant but framed philosophically. For them, God’s role is less about dictating rules and more about enabling ethical encounters.
- Talmudic Debates: The Talmud itself engages meta-ethics implicitly. In Bava Metzia 59b, a famous story describes Rabbi Eliezer’s dispute with other sages over a legal ruling. Despite divine signs supporting Eliezer, the majority rules, and God accepts their decision, suggesting human reasoning within Torah’s framework can shape moral outcomes. This hints at a tension: is morality fixed by God’s word, or does human interpretation co-create it?
Challenges to Divine Command
Some Jewish thinkers wrestle with the Euthyphro-like question: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good? If the former, morality seems arbitrary; if the latter, goodness might exist independently of God. Most sidestep this by affirming God’s nature as inherently good and wise. For instance, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (20th century) saw divine law as harmonizing human morality with cosmic purpose, avoiding the arbitrariness trap.
Modern Jewish philosophers like Lenn Goodman argue that Judaism assumes an objective moral order that God’s commands reflect, not create. Murder is wrong not just because God said so but because it violates the sanctity of life, a principle God upholds. Yet, traditionalists might counter that human notions of "objective" morality still derive authority from divine revelation.
National Loyalty and Meta-Ethics
Your earlier question about economists and national loyalty could connect here. Judaism’s ethical tradition often prioritizes the Jewish people’s covenant with God, which can resemble "national loyalty." The mitzvot include particularist duties (e.g., preserving Jewish identity) alongside universal ones (e.g., justice for strangers, Exodus 22:21). Meta-ethically, this raises questions: Does Jewish morality prioritize the in-group, or is it universal? Thinkers like Levinas universalize Jewish ethics, while traditionalists might emphasize the covenant’s particularity. This tension mirrors debates about whether economists’ globalism neglects national ties—Judaism balances both but doesn’t fully resolve the question.
Conclusion
In Judaism, goodness often stems from God’s commands, but these are seen as rational, purposeful, and aligned with a deeper moral order, not arbitrary. There’s a robust meta-ethical tradition, spanning rationalism, mysticism, and modern philosophy, that probes the nature of morality, though it’s more embedded in texts and debates than formalized as a discipline. Jewish thought largely avoids the Euthyphro dilemma by tying God’s will to wisdom and human flourishing, but it leaves room for ongoing wrestling with these questions—true to the tradition’s dialogic spirit.
