Q&A: Coercing Values
Coercing Values
Question
Hello Rabbi,
As is known, the objective values, as we’ve discussed extensively, are divided into three categories: self-evident truths, widely accepted norms, and religious commandments. However, values between one person and another are commonly enforced, whereas values that are not of that kind seem to be left to the person’s own discretion. So one must ask:
Is this coercion purely practical? Meaning, no moral value should be imposed on anyone as such, but since a person disrupts and harms the proper order of life, we coerce him.
If that is the answer, then should states intervene in atrocities taking place beyond their jurisdiction? Or should each region care only for itself, because this is merely a practical matter?
If there is indeed coercion of values, then it would seem to be our duty to ensure that a person upholds all values according to the correct objective order of reality, and one could also coerce him regarding private values and religious commandments.
What do you say?
Answer
It’s hard to do justice here to such a broad question. I’ll write in outline form.
There is no difference between the various kinds of values with respect to coercion. In principle, there is certainly a place to compel everyone to do what is proper and right. On the other hand, coercion itself is problematic (because of the value of autonomy), and of course an act performed under coercion does not always have any value at all (in which case coercion is pointless). Therefore, rules of coercion developed in order to balance these two poles. For example, when an act harms others there is more justification for coercion, but even then it is not always done (it depends on the proportionality between the harm done to the person being coerced and the harm he causes the other person). In addition, a person who has not seriously considered the matter and has not formed a position properly is more fit to be coerced. A person who knowingly does so because of his evil inclination is more fit to be coerced. And so on and so forth.
Discussion on Answer
Lack of certainty is also a significant consideration. And still, everyone coerces under certain circumstances despite the uncertainty. That too has to be weighed. As I explained in my article, the principled consideration against coercion is not uncertainty but the value of autonomy. See here:
The problem is that there is no certainty, as the Rabbi himself says. So what justification is there for coercing someone who thinks differently? Suppose you think that the whole scenario of the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah at Sinai, etc., is 90% probable, and then someone comes along and claims that the probability that these are folk legends is 95%. From where would you draw the justification to coerce him? How do you quantify certainty at all when certainties clash?