Motivation Does Matter

Lech Lecha Sermon

Quite a LOT or Not a LOT?

וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ ה וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵחָרָֽן׃

Two people go on a journey, one is described as following the Divine call the other tags along with his uncle.

Cassuto:

וילך אתו לוט. לוט ידוע לנו כבר ממה שנאמר עליו בפיסקה האחרונה של פרק י״א; וכבר שם הזכיר אותו הכתוב יחד עם אברם ושרי, כאילו להשמיע שמאז הצטרף לוט היתום לקבוצתו המיוחדת של אברם דודו בתוך חוג משפחתו הרחב של תרח.

We know Lot from last week’s Parasha, the orphaned nephew of Avraham joined his uncle’s group.  But our verse highlights a significant difference between them.

אבל ניסוחו של פסוק זה רומז להבדל שבין אברם לבין לוט: אברם הלך מפני שכך ציוהו ה׳ (וילך אברם כאשר דבר אליו ה׳), ולוט הלך רק מפני שהלך אברם (וילך אתו לוט). לוט לא זכה להתעלות עד דרגת דודו; וההבלט שביניהם יובלט עוד בהמשך הכתובים.

Lot didn’t reach the level of prophet , his spiritual growth was stunted.  The tragic results of his lack of growth become very apparent in the stories that we will read in the coming weeks.  But does it really matter if the intent or motivation isn’t there, isn’t doing the right thing good enough?  Ultimately he followed his uncle and went to the promised land.

What do we know about Lot?

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח תֶּ֚רַח הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָ֑ן וְהָרָ֖ן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־לֽוֹט׃GRANDSON

וַיָּ֣מׇת הָרָ֔ן עַל־פְּנֵ֖י תֶּ֣רַח אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מוֹלַדְתּ֖וֹ בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃ORPHAN

וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃WENT WITH HIS UNLCE TO ISRAEL

But Avraham was promised wonderful things by Hashem if he went on the journey. It was easy for him to listen to Hashem. Lot never had any incentivising promises. Yet the  Chatam Sofer explains that:

וילך אברם כאשר דבר אליו ה   אע"פי שהקב"ה אמר לו לך לך להנאתך ולטובתך בכל זאת הי' כוונתו רק כאשר דבר אליו השם לקיים מאמרו יתברך שמו ואע"פ שהי' בן חמש ושבעים שנה והתחילו ימי הזקנה בכל זאת הלך לקיים ציווי השם יתברך

HaKtav VeHaKabalah

אתו לוט. דאתחבר עמי' בגין למילף מעובדוי, ועם כל דא לא אוליף כולי האי (מכדרשב"י ע"ח ב') יסוד דבריהם מדלא אמר עמו כ"א אתו, כמש"כ באחרי הפרד לוט (י"ג י"ד):

Lot was motivated to learn from his uncle but he didn’t fully succeed. Ito as opposed to Imo, there remained a distance.

Regardless of his choices later in his life, did Lot really do something wrong at this stage? Was his motivation really a problem?

Classical philosophers hotly debated whether the belief that a good end justifies the means is a cogent position to take.  Those in the tradition of virtue ethics (like Plato and Aristotle) see human development as key. Consequently, every act must make you more virtuous. Thus the means and not only the ends matter greatly.

For Aristotle, the goal of ethics is eudaimonia, often translated as "flourishing" or "living well."  This is achieved by living virtuously. 

An action is only truly virtuous if it's performed by an agent who:

1.    Knows what they are doing.

2.    Chooses the action for its own sake (because it is the right thing to do).

Aristotle claims that the goodness is never in the action itself but only in the doer. For example, a person who helps the poor merely to gain public praise is performing a physically good act, but it is not a virtuous act for Aristotle, because they are not acting from the motivation of genuine benevolence or justice. Their internal state and reason for acting are flawed.

True virtue requires the alignment of motivation and reason.

There is a contrasting view, known as Consequentialism. This theory holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an act is determined solely by its consequences (the "end"). It doesn’t really matter if you changed or became more virtuous on the journey if the destination is correct then all is good.

You can decide. But before you do , we are going to play a game:

For each scenario, choose whether the stated motivation matters Quite a LOT or Not a LOT.

#	The Dilemma	Your Options
1.	You invent a device that instantly cleans up all the plastic in the ocean. Your only motivation is to become obscenely rich and buy a space yacht. The ocean, however, is now pristine.	A. The motivation matters Quite a LOT
		B. The motivation matters Not a LOT
2.	A waiter gives you a free slice of cake. His motivation is pure malice; he knows you're desperately trying to stick to a diet and wants you to suffer. But... it's a delicious slice of triple-chocolate cake.	A. The malice matters Quite a LOT
		B. The malice matters Not a LOT
3.	You tell a white lie about loving your friend's hideous new painting. The lie's purpose is to preserve your friend's happiness and your long-term friendship. The painting remains hideous, but the friendship is safe.	A. The good motivation (friendship) matters Quite a LOT
		B. The good motivation (friendship) matters Not a LOT

The foundation stories of Am Yisrael teach us how we are meant to behave. The contrast between Avraham and Lot is not a simple throwaway line in the Torah.  Simon Sinek taught:  “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe.” We have all been on Avraham’s journey but what of the children who have not heard the call or are too young to journey on their own?  What part can we play in making sure the journey continues?

It really is not enough to do and hope that others will copy our behaviour.  What motivation do they have to behave like us, why should they, we represent the past for our children not the future. 

Sinek said: they buy why you do it. It’s crucial that we all succeed in making sense of our tradition and feel capable of explaining the why.  People are motivated by a sense of purpose or conviction. When a company communicates its "why," it speaks to a person's own values and beliefs, which is a powerful motivator. 

Sinek claims that why is probably the most important message a business or an individual should communicate as it inspires others to act.

He explains that communicating intrinsic motivations through the why is a way to successfully transmit information to the listener's limbic brain. It is a part of the human body that supports emotions, behaviour, motivation, long-term memory, decision-making, and processes feelings such as trust and loyalty.

Addressing the why is an impactful way to influence others’ behaviour ethically.

Finally, Viktor Frankl said: “The motivation to live is not something that can be taken for granted; it must be cultivated, nurtured, and protected.”

Why we live, what we live for , how we live, cannot be left too chance. Too often people wake up after its too late and wonder where thing went wrong. Don’t tag along on a journey that began so long ago. Be an active participant on that journey and ensure those who come next will continue the journey too.  Does it matter Quite a LOT or Not a LOT. Or simply A LOT.