The categorical order against “the poor of your city come first”
Hello Rabbi
What is the right balance between the categorical imperative versus “the poor of your city come first”?
I struggled with this question a lot following the publication about a month ago that the “Mossad” is trying to bring in ventilators through “gray” means: https://www.mako.co.il/tv-ilana_dayan/2020/Article-0d107c1c6123171027.htm .
If we ignore the question of whether this is true and why such a thing is being advertised, is there any justification for obtaining masks in ways that are ostensibly legal but “unclean” and could harm other countries, especially those that need the machines more than we do?
This question in particular occurs to me because almost everyone I know has a very strong opinion. Some say that it clearly is and the state should only worry about itself and as long as there is no actual theft (or maybe even if there is) it is justified, and the other part is really horrified by such actions and explains that there is no justification for it.
I would appreciate your opinion on the subject, and some clarification on where the line is drawn and what the right balance is.
thanks
I think that if the Mossad took illegal and improper actions to obtain the machines, it is very serious, regardless of the categorical order. It is simply harming others in order to save yourself, against the principle of “who will dare”. Like two people walking in the desert, the question is whether it is permissible for the second to steal the kiton from the first. Obviously not, although stealing is rejected by most opinions. This is what the Chazo’a writes there, and I think Rav Kook also does in the Teshua.
Therefore, there is no limit or balance here. It is simply forbidden.
The question, however, is whether these are legal but "unfair" actions, such as the example they gave of looking for an order from another country and offering the seller a higher price so that they will sell to us instead of to the other country.
Well, I don't know how to set general guidelines. It requires a lot of research and thinking, and each question is unique. But what you describe is a poor man who is being turned upside down, and it seems to me that this is also inappropriate. On further thought, it seems to me that as a general rule, as long as there is a Pico on the other side, you should act as cleanly as possible. You must not do anything that is inappropriate.
The problem is that you are in the jungle. If you are the only one who does not do this, you will be the only one who will not survive. In other words, the person you are robbing from probably also uses such methods. Does that not change the considerations at all?
This is not about an individual stealing for his own gain, but for the gain of a public. Isn't that what I mean by public gain? After all, even going to war for power permits a type of theft, from another people who are not necessarily enemies at the moment.
My assumption for the matter is that taking the machines did not endanger the lives of those being "stolen," but rather they simply did not want to sell to us or demanded an unrealistic price.
Maor, I don't think you're right. If that's the case, then of course the conclusion is different.
Avi, there's also a crowd on the other side. If it's just a business or financial matter, then you have to pay. And if you're not willing to sell, there's room for compromise.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
