How to reach a decision on issues in life
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve been listening to you for a few years now and have read some of your books, and I wanted to ask you a question about how you formulate a position.
I understand that on every issue that comes up, there are good arguments here and there. Now a law has been passed to deport terrorist families. Although I have some instinctive tendency to think that one of these positions is more “correct,” if I want to be honest with myself, I have to think about things in depth without turning any position into a straw man. In light of this, it is not clear to me how one can ultimately formulate a conclusion, which is why I wanted to ask how you usually do it.
It’s clear to me that there are examples, for example the issue of abortion, where those who are pro-life see abortion as infanticide and therefore have the privilege of being very firm and harsh in their opposition to abortion supporters (and rightly so, of course). But if we take more delicate issues where there is no such dominant value and principle, how can we reach conclusions? On the issue of deporting terrorist families, I really understand that there are good principles here and there, so how can we decide?
thanks
I don’t have an answer and I don’t think there is a general answer to such a question. You have to examine all the arguments and all the sides and aspects, each for itself, and finally consider which of them is decisive. This weighing is an intuitive matter, and there is no algorithm for it.
For example, regarding the release of terrorists (and I assume that this is a family that knew and cooperated, or encouraged him in principle even if they didn’t know, otherwise there is also a consideration of justice), there is a consideration of deterrence of others and of the person himself who knows the expected punishment for his family. (If he is willing to die, it is likely that his deterrence will not change much, but he may care about his family). There is a consideration of punishment for the fact that they knew and cooperated. There is a counter-consideration of incentive for family and friends to become terrorists because of their anger at us (on the other hand, maybe they are angry at us anyway and there is no shortage of terrorists). There is another counter-consideration of protests in the world. There is a counter-consideration of difficulty finding a target that will accept him. One consideration that I would attribute less weight to is an outlet for our anger, and I feel that this is the main consideration at play in these discussions.
In many cases, it is worth listening to professionals who are knowledgeable about the details and information. This can also vary from person to person. I wouldn’t let them make the decision (because they too have agendas, and don’t really have professional knowledge in the strict sense of the word in these areas), but it is definitely important to listen to them as well.
And finally, if you don’t have a position, then you can also remain in doubt or in a state of uncertainty. Of course, there is the question of what to do in cases of doubt, and here one must consider the costs of doing and not doing (is there anything to lose and how much).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
