בעיית ה"טוב" במשנתו של הרמב"ם

Two contemporary scholars, Warren Z. Harvey and Sarah Klein-Braslavy, have presented penetrating analyses of Maimonides' approach to the notion of "good". Despite a number of significant differences in their presentations, they agree that the definition Maimonides offers of "good" in The Guide of the Perplexed III:13 — "good is an expression applied by us to what conforms to our purpose" — is at the root of his approach. "Good" is a subjective notion for it makes no discrimination between types of goals. This paper argues that Maimonides never in fact uses "good" as a purely subjective notion. His definition of a "good and excellent" action in III:25 as an "action aiming at a noble end... and achieves that end", is more reflective of his approach. Maimonides implicitly identifies "noble end" with existence. Therefore, that which exists, and every action which contributes to existence, is labeled by him "good". The main part of the paper focuses on two areas where Maimonides appears to use "good" as a subjective notion. The first is in his discussion of Adam's sin, where "good" is identified with "generally accepted opinions" in the realm of morality. Prior to his sin, Adam possessed a pure intellect which knew only necessary "truth". Adam's knowledge of "good" came about with the loss of perfection and may have been the cause of that loss. This suggests that knowledge of "good" is subjective and even negative. The second area concerns God's purpose in the creation of the world. "Good" in regard to creation appears to be used in a neutral sense. It is God's act of pure will which is responsible for creation. The paper argues that Maimonides' distinction between "truth" and "good" is basically the Aristotelian distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Practical knowledge comes into being when man turns to corporeal matters, which is the essence of Adam's "sin". Popular morality concerns the wellbeing of man qua corporeal creature living in a social context. This is for Maimonides a "noble end", man being by nature a political animal, though inferior to his end of attaining the state of pure intellect which Adam possessed initially. In regard to the issue of the purpose of creation, Maimonides may be interpreted as maintaining that existence has intrinsic value. Thus the act of creation is not solely due to the divine will but also to divine wisdom which gives preference to existence. The paper further explores the question whether Maimonides recognizes a system of morality belonging to the theoretical intellect and having the epistemological status of "truth" or of the "intelligibles". The answer appears to be negative, all moral knowledge being the product of the practical rational faculty. This is not to deny that Maimonides sees intrinsic connections between theoretical perfection and moral perfection. Moreover, he posits fundamental distinctions between different systems of morality, both in regard to their goal and in regard to their content. The paper concludes with a discussion of the question why Maimonides employs the expression, "the Torah speaks in the language of the sons of man", in regard to the verse, "And God saw that it was good".