Arbitrary Anchoring in Orthodox Jewish Philosophy: Problem and Solution

Since at least the 20th century, the primary task of Orthodox Jewish philosophy has been to ground communities’ observance of Jewish law (halakha). Like Rabbi Moses Mendelssohn and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch before him, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik placed halakha as the locus of Jewish Orthodoxy. Yet, Soloveitchik and those who followed him could not philosophically substantiate their commitment to halakha because of their failure to adequately grapple with the fact-value paradigm. Breaking from medieval metaphysics that defined values by reference to the telos of human nature, Thomas Hobbes’ and Baruch Spinoza’s fact-value paradigm posits the self-evidence of scientific fact discourse and the subsequent arbitrariness of theological and/or political value discourse. According to Randi Rashkover’s Nature and Norm, Jewish and Christian thought in the 20th and 21st centuries is aptly described in terms of an ongoing struggle with the fact-value divide. Orthodox Jewish thought is no exception to Rashkover’s analysis; it has struggled and failed repeatedly to make logically-valid claims within the fact-value paradigm. However, halakha is particularly well-situated for an Orthodox move beyond fact-value thinking.