This is a superficial delve into Jewish theological ethics. If you're looking for some great reading, I cannot recommend enough The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality, edited by Rabbi Elliot Dorff and Rabbi Jonathan Crane.

Part of the goal is to trace an evolution of Jewish ethical thinking across time. Where we started is not where we are in so many ways, and I think it's a fantastic way to deepen our relationship to our ethical story.

Broad definitions to get us started:

consequentialism - "the ends justify the means", where the morality of an act is determined by its outcome or its intended outcome, if the good was to outweigh the bad.

deontology - rules and principles determine the morality of an action, not the consequences of an action.

virtue ethics - virtue and character are the locus of ethics, not consequences of actions, or principles or rules.

What is the definition of tikkun olam today vs. in antiquity? Hint: they are not the same.

Is there an ethical motive in obeying the mitzvot conveyed in Torah? Is it covenantal ("all that God has commanded, we will do an we will obey")? Reward and punishment? What defines right and wrong in Torah?

Was destroying the Amalekites right or wrong? Is it right or wrong to kill a recalcitrant son?

What do you think was the ethical/philosophical approach of Chazal (rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud)?

but then, how often does "Why did the Torah command?" appear in these sources? The Torah never gives an answer for why a Hebrew slave gets a hole in their ear, but the rabbis sure have some polemic on it.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROZBUL? The Torah demanded a Shmita every seven years, at the end of which debts were cancelled. This law, which ostensibly helped the poor escape debt-without-end, would see a chilling effect on loans to the poor as Shmita approached, because lenders close to the end of the cycle would recoup next to nothing. Hillel the Elder came up with the prozbul, which transferred debts to the courts...the law did not apply to loans in the "public domain."

This is an example of what is originally meant by tikkun olam, and evidence that we don't just care about the rules, but we still weigh moral and ethical merit on the outcome of obeying those rules.

The first purposeful rationalization of Torah kicked off in Hellenistic times.

What is the Letter of Aristeas? Principally, we know it as the source for the story of the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Torah started. Between this letter and Philo of Alexandria, we start seeing rationalizations for commandments. Categories included beliefs, virtuous emotions, actions symbolizing beliefs, and actions symbolizing virtues.

How influential is this in our ethical approach now?

Saadia Gaon was the first of our sages to divvy up the mitzvot between those required by reason (sikliyot) and those from revalation (shimiyot). Just as Philo was clearly influenced by Platonic ideas, so was Saadia Gaon, in articulating the consequences of disobeying mitzvot. He also said that irrational laws, like laying tefillin or keeping kosher, had usefulness, like dietary laws helping to prevent worship of animals.

Maimonides gave us a similar concept.

What are chukim, and what are mishpatim as it relates to mitzvot?

What is Rambam's assertion behind the intention for the law? What is the "gracious ruse?"

As an adjacency to virtue ethics, Rambam attributed his concept of the golden mean to scholars and Avraham, but likely borrowed it from Aristotle. We take the middle road, where each personality trait should stand between the extremes that define what is moral and ethical behavior. If you're too generous, be more stingy, and if you're too stingy, be more generous...but not too much of anything. And all of this is defined by our mitzvot, in the example of tzedakah, see his 8 levels of tzedakah. It was heavily present in the Musar movement, which is staging a come back.

Modern Jewish theological ethics is just as fractured today, and I think it would take a whole separate class to cover Moses Mendelssohn, Baruch Spinoza, the Musar movement, Chassidut, Mitnagdim, and everything else from haskalah forward.

But some questions:

What is the tension between "religion par excellence", where we have common truths, found in the mishpatim, that enlightened humans hold as "self-evident", and our particularist practices that make us distinctly Jewish?

How do you relate personally to what is good and what is bad in Judaism? Do you look at our traditions and say, "I follow them because this is what is commanded?" Do you say, "informed by our traditions, I take this course of action to yield the greatest good?" Do you just strive to be a "good person?" Or something else entirely?