Proportion regarding kidnappings and terrorist attacks

שו”ת › Category: general › Proportion regarding kidnappings and terrorist attacks

asked 2 months ago

The rabbi has often written about questions of public morality and hierarchies of values. I have a difficulty: It seems that the public and the state are investing enormous efforts in rescuing hostages and preventing terrorist attacks – even at heavy costs – while in other areas, such as preventing infections in hospitals (which cause thousands of deaths a year), the response is much less dramatic.
Is there a moral or halakhic justification for the different treatment? Is it just a psychological-social issue (the trauma of a terrorist attack versus a “quiet death”), or is there a moral principle that prefers saving lives “by human means” over preventing deaths from “natural” or systemic causes?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 2 months ago

There is such a feeling, but I’m not sure it’s true. We invest a lot in health and infection prevention. But it’s not done all at once, but in ongoing budgets, and therefore it doesn’t attract attention. It is true that there is a difference between a problem that is now facing us and general prevention when there is no specific person who is threatened by it. For example, many agree (and I am among them) that the rescue of the kidnapped should be preferred to the fear of future terrorism by terrorists released in the deal. Although in terms of numbers, it is certainly likely that more people will be harmed in the future than the twenty who will be released now. I explained this in one of my columns about the kidnapped.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אורן replied 2 months ago

Brief clarification: In my previous question, I spoke about both hostages and terrorist attacks versus deaths from infections. Now I am clarifying and removing the issue of hostages from the picture. The question: How do we morally/halachically explain the enormous preoccupation with terrorist attack victims (who are not “laid before our eyes” in real time) compared to the limited attention paid to deaths from infections in hospitals, which are supposedly higher and more preventable? Is there a normative priority for death due to human malice over death from “systemic” causes, or is this an emotional bias that should not determine priorities?

מיכי Staff replied 2 months ago

Beyond emotion, the success of an attack is a moral victory for the enemy and also motivation to carry out more attacks. Therefore, the difference can also be understood rationally.