[Avodah] ethic outside of halacha

[Zev Sero]

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Whether there exists an ethic outside of halacha. The two most obvious
> proofs are
> 
> 1. Naval Bershut Hatorah - If the Ramban feels that one can keep
> all the mitzvot and still be evil it implies there is a definition
> of evil not formally stated in SA

False premise: that all of Torah is in SA.  Or, more precisely, that
everything Torah disapproves of it forbids, and therefore whatever it
permits it says nothing about.   But that's not true; there are many
moral statements in Torah that don't become binding halacha.  For one
thing, one can't asser a midah; one can condemn it, but one can't
asser it.  So there is plenty of room to be a naval "birshut hatorah"
without looking outside Torah for definitions of a "naval".  Similarly
"kadesh atzmecha bamutar lach";  there is plenty of guidance in Torah
for what is "kadosh" without looking outside it.



> I am not sure if the concept of hakarat hatov is officially mentioned
> in SA but it is something we expect even from a nonJew and it certainly
> is not part of the 7 Mitzvot of Bnei Noach

It may not be in SA, because it's a midah that one can't legislate but
"shelo lihyot kfuy tovah", and condemnations of a "kfuy tovah" are all
over the Torah.


> 2. Avraham's argument with G-d of Sdom - accusing G-d of not doing
> justice. It certainly implies that Avraham considered the destruction
> of Sdom as being against fundamental justice at least if some righteous
> people are there.

"Chalilah lach" means "chulin hu lach", it's not appropriate for You,
it's not up to Your standards.  Maybe for an ordinary person it would
be OK to act in such a way; "chulin" is not "assur" or even disapproved,
but it's not "kadosh".


> Similarly with the pleas of Moshe Rabbenu. We also see from Moshe
> Rabbenu that what the "goyim" would say is an important factor. In the
> sin of the golden calf it is one of 3 arguments of Moshe and in the sin
> of the spies it is the only argument of Moshe.  Hence, chillul hashem
> because of goyim is important

This is weak, because he's not making a moral argument, he's making a
prudential argument.  It's certainly not *wrong* for Hashem to make
Himself disdained by people; it's His name and He's got every right to
do what He likes with it.  Moshe is merely pointing out that He might
not want to do this, because the consequences will be that the goyim
will think He's impotent.   Ditto when David says "lo lanu ki leshimcha
ten kavod...lama yomru hagoyim"; this isn't a moral argument, he's just
saying "never mind us, this is good for You".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher