A proposal for a paradox
Hello Rabbi,
I was thinking about a paradox and would love to get a solution from the rabbi if possible.
It goes like this: If your son asks you to eat cream cake every day at every meal, you will of course refuse. He will claim that it tastes great to him and is good for him. You will claim in response that you agree that it tastes great but that it is also very harmful to the body and in the calculation that weighs both levels, there is great harm here, so you do not agree.
If this calculation is correct, why don’t we replace the terrorists’ diet with cream cakes? I guess no one would agree to that.
There are a few assumptions here that I’m making for the sake of the paradox:
1. It is allowed under international law (or we don’t care)
2. That economically it does not harm us (or at least it does not harm us to such an extent that it prevents us from killing the terrorists, even if in a few years)
3. That we don’t have a more effective and applicable way to “abuse” them.
Of course we would agree that it is a good idea to give this to a terrorist who understands nutrition and is very careful about it. But the question is also about terrorists who would be happy to receive such abuse.
Assumption 3 throws the ground out from under the discussion. The simple answer is that we shouldn’t give it to them because there is a way to give them food that is both harmful and unpalatable. In Assumption 3 you assume that there is no such food. So what do you want from me? What paradox do you see here? It’s kind of like asking if we have no other way to get to the moon than on a winged horse, is it right to ride a winged horse to get there?
All of this assumes that eating cream cake is abuse. Some will tell you that it’s not abuse because it’s delicious. And it’s worth it even at the cost of shortening your life. And then the question is basically a lie.
In short, it’s empty talk.
I didn't understand the problem with assumption 3 - if it is shown that there is no other way (or that there are other ways but there is no economic inefficiency). Regarding the winged horse - again, assuming that this is the only way and it works, why not really?
“All this is assuming that eating cream cake is abuse”- Of course, this question is only for those who make such an assumption, and that is anyone who would not give it to their child.
“In short, it is empty talk.”- This is the nature of a paradox, isn't it?
You have understood the problem well: if you want to achieve X and the only way to achieve X is A, then you must act in the way A. What is the question?
There is no paradox here and no hint of a paradox. It is empty chatter because it is a logical tautology.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
