Q&A: Moral Judgment
Moral Judgment
Question
The head of the Hebron Yeshiva cried out that people are donating to soldiers in the war instead of to kollel students. My immediate reaction was that this was sheer wickedness (and I’m not even getting into the desecration of God’s name and the terrible insensitivity of the timing). But in light of your column that a person should be judged according to his own perception, under the assumption that he believes the kollel students did not receive enough money after all the thefts of the past year, and the belief that they protect the country no less than the soldiers do (even if, in our view, that belief is mistaken) — does that mean that when judging him morally, he is not wicked?
Answer
I assume he is not wicked. But it is indeed extreme insensitivity.
See also the remarks of Rabbi Dov Lando that were just published: https://www.inn.co.il/news/618511
Discussion on Answer
That is completely correct. It is a warped society in itself, but it is hard to say that an ordinary Haredi is wicked as a person. He truly believes these nonsense ideas.
There is a great deal of wickedness in their conduct, since it is full of lies, exploitation, and condescending criticism of others, as well as hiding and silencing their own flaws and persecuting anyone who thinks differently, but Haredism itself does not indicate personal wickedness.
By the way, regarding the coalition funds for the Haredim: it was just published that a petition was filed to the High Court of Justice demanding that the state take those funds away from the Haredim and redirect them to investment in the Gaza border region and the fighting, etc. Does the Rabbi think there is a legal case here?
It just crossed my mind that the reasonableness doctrine could have helped here, and it may be that abolishing that doctrine will prevent the court from intervening in this case.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m very doubtful. It is unlikely that such a petition would be accepted.
I didn’t understand — how can one say that a person should be judged from within his own perspective? If his perspective is distorted, why should the fact that it is his perspective affect the judgment of him?
(I didn’t read the column in question, but that is the claim stated in the body of the question…)
Then read the column in question.
Rabbi, you are writing harsh things about Haredi society, but meanwhile it seems there is change. About 3,000 Haredim enlisted in the army בעקבות the war, and openness is penetrating there.
I am very glad that they too agree with my remarks and are trying to change. I hope this continues and deepens.
This was just published in the Haredi sector:
A Torah authority from our teacher, the eminent Rabbi Yisrael Binyamin Schreiber, may he live a long good life.
“Question: What is the proper attitude toward soldiers on the battlefield — gratitude and making an effort? Answer: ‘What is the proper attitude, gratitude, and making an effort toward sanitation workers who collect the garbage every morning? It is the same question.’”
Would it be correct here to say that he is wicked?
I don’t think there is wickedness here. It is a rather foolish analogy whose purpose is to preserve a collapsing ideology. Which proves once again that intelligent people can say nonsense because of mental lock-in and positional bias.
Does the Rabbi think that Haredi ideology is collapsing?
It seems that they think so.
So this is basically true of the criticism of the Haredim in general: they have a destructive and evil ideology, but it does not stem from the wickedness of the individuals? Or do you generally not believe most of them when they say they truly believe in that ideology (as opposed to those rabbis)?
Beyond that, if an ideology is so irrational and unfounded (in my view, at least), don’t they bear responsibility for holding such an irrational outlook, one that has such broad security and economic consequences for society? Shouldn’t that negligence also affect the moral judgment?