Why Be Good -- Two Answers in the Book of Deuteronomy

Rabbi Melanie Aron

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Why Be Good, is the title of a book we draw upon for our Confirmation class. Written in language accessible to teenagers, it lays out the two basic philosophical positions in the field of ethics: the deontological, or rule based, (stealing is wrong) and the utilitarian or consequence based (stealing hurts people). I believe that the book of Deuteronomy makes both arguments and interestingly with our two Bat Mitzvah students this morning, each focused exclusively on one side or the other in this longstanding debate.

Deuteronomy has a strong sense of right and wrong, as Casey expressed in her D’var Torah. There are rules and the guidance they provide for us is certain. Unlike the Biblical book of Job or Ecclesiastes, or I would argue, even sections of the narratives in the Five Books of Moses, where there tends to be a lot of grey areas, in the book of Deuteronomy, things are black or white, right or wrong, life or death, the blessing or the curse.

Deuteronomy also has a strong sense of compassion which I would argue represents an appeal also to a more utilitarian ethic. Alone among the Five Books of the Bible, Deuteronomy is constantly reminding us of the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, the widow and the orphan, the landless Levite put out of work by the centralization of worship in Jerusalem, and the non-Israelite stranger. Just one example: the word widow, almanah, which occurs only six times in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers combined, appears 11 times in the much shorter book of Deuteronomy. As scholar Lillian Klein Abensohn of American University and author of From Deborah to Esther: Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible, notes: “the widow is always mentioned with the command that her welfare be guaranteed and protected.” This is the aspect of Deuteronomy that Julianna talked about.

In our Torah portion this week, we find two answers to the question, why be good. In some parts of the parshah, the argument is rule based: don’t use false weights and measures, that would be a toevah, an abhorrent thing. Uphold the cause of the widow - out of an abstract sense of justice. But in other parts of the portion, the argument is made out of sympathy for the plight of those who need our help.

Finally it is interesting to me that God is portrayed in a dual way as well. God is portrayed as the legal defender of the rules (deontological ethics), but also as the sympathetic provider of food and garment (utilitarian ethics).

In our Torah portion this morning we had the words- ha-el hagadol hagibor vehanorah, familiar to many of us from the Avot prayer. In that prayer we say: Eloheinu V’Elohei Avoteinu, our God and God of our fathers. The rabbis explain that this is because, if one only comes up with one’s own conception of God, Eloheinu, without any guidance from past generations, one might go astray. Similarly, if one only had Elohei Avoteinu, the understanding of past generations, without one’s own connection, it would be meaningless. I wonder if there is something similar with regard to ethics.

If we have only a utilitarian ethic, then we have no way to consider motivations. Further we are not so good at predicting the consequences of our actions. Finally, there are those who have argued from the greater good to justify inhumanity such as slavery or torture. On the other side a deontological system can lead us to rule blindness. Famously the philosopher Immanuel Kant is said to have argued that if it is wrong to lie, it is wrong even to lie when a murderer asks you for the address of his victim. We can all think of situations where slavish obedience to rules leads to inhumane outcomes.

Just as our own understanding of God is informed by the understanding of our people, and the guidance of past generations made meaningful by our own personal understanding, in ethics we can benefit from the combination of both systems. We are good when we are conscious of the guidance that systems of morality provide and of the actual consequences of our actions in this particular situation.