Coercion of values

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Coercion of values

asked 6 years ago

Hello Rabbi.
As we know, objective values, as we have discussed many times, are divided into three famous wisdoms and religious commandments. Although values that are commonly imposed between one person and another, they are values that are not at the person’s disposal and must be asked:
Is this coercion purely practical? In other words, no moral value should be imposed on any person, but since it disrupts and harms the normal order of life, we impose it on them.
If this is the answer, then should countries intervene in atrocities that occur beyond their control? Or should each region only worry about itself because it is just a practical matter?
If there is indeed a compulsion of values, then it is our duty to ensure that the person upholds all values according to the correct objective order of reality, and private values and religious commandments can also be imposed on him.
What are you saying?

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 6 years ago

It is difficult to exhaust this broad question here. I will write chapter headings. There is no difference between the different types of values when it comes to coercion. In principle, there is definitely an interest in forcing everyone to do what is appropriate and right. On the other hand, there is a problem with coercion itself (because of the value of autonomy) and of course, coercion does not always have value at all (then there is no benefit to coercion). Therefore, coercion rules have developed to balance the two poles. For example, when the act harms others, it is more permissible to coerce, but even then this is not always done (depending on the proportionality of the harm to the coerced person compared to the harm to the other person). In addition, a person who has not seriously considered and has not formulated a position in a proper manner is more deserving of being coerced. A person who is deliberate and does so because of his evil instinct is more deserving of being coerced. Etc., etc.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

דוד זיגל replied 6 years ago

The problem is that there is no certainty, as the rabbi himself says. So what is the justification for imposing something on someone who believes differently? Let's say you believe that the entire scenario of the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah at Sinai, etc., is ninety percent likely, and someone comes along and claims that the probability of these being folk tales is ninety-five percent. Where do you get the justification for imposing something on him? How do you even quantify certainty when there is a conflict of certainties?

מיכי Staff replied 6 years ago

Uncertainty is also a significant consideration. And yet everyone coerces in certain circumstances despite the uncertainty. That too must be weighed. As I explained in my article, the principle consideration against coercion is not uncertainty but the value of autonomy. See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA/