Q&A: The Categorical Imperative versus “The Poor of Your City Come First”
The Categorical Imperative versus "The Poor of Your City Come First"
Question
Hello Rabbi,
What is the proper balance between the categorical imperative and “the poor of your city come first”?
I struggled a lot with this question בעקבות the publication about a month ago that the Mossad was trying to obtain ventilators through “gray” methods: https://www.mako.co.il/tv-ilana_dayan/2020/Article-0d107c1c6123171027.htm.
If we set aside the question of whether that is true and why something like this would be publicized, is there any justification for obtaining the machines through methods that are ostensibly legal but “not clean,” and that could harm other countries, especially ones that need the machines more than we do?
This question especially comes up for me because almost everyone I know has a very decisive opinion. Some say that of course yes—the state should take care only of itself, and as long as there is no actual theft (or maybe even if there is), it is justified. The other side is genuinely horrified by such actions and explains that there is no justification for them at all.
I would be glad to hear your opinion on the subject, and for some clarification about where the line is and what the proper balance is.
Thank you
Answer
I think that if the Mossad carried out illegal and improper actions in order to obtain the machines, that is very severe regardless of the categorical imperative. It is simply harming someone else in order to save yourself, against the principle of “who says your blood is redder?” Like two people walking in the desert—the question is whether the second may steal the canteen from the first. Clearly not, even though theft overrides saving a life according to most opinions. That is what the Hazon Ish writes there, and if I remember correctly Rabbi Kook does as well in a responsum.
Therefore, here there is no line and no balance. It is simply forbidden.
Discussion on Answer
Well, I don’t know how to set general guidelines. That requires a lot of research and thought, and each question has to be judged on its own merits. But what you are describing is like a poor man turning over a cake, and it seems to me that this too is improper. On further thought, it seems to me that as a rule, as long as there is danger to life on the other side as well, you are supposed to act in the cleanest way possible. You must not do anything improper.
The problem is that you’re in a jungle. If you are the only one who doesn’t do it, you’ll be the only one who doesn’t survive. In other words, even the one you’re taking from is, most likely, using those kinds of methods. Doesn’t that change the considerations at all?
Here we are not talking about an individual who steals for the sake of saving his own life, but about danger to life for a public. Is danger to life for a public not different? After all, even going out to a discretionary war permits a kind of theft, from another people that is not necessarily an enemy at the moment.
My assumption for the sake of discussion is that taking the machines did not endanger the lives of those they were taken from; they simply did not want to sell to us or demanded an unrealistic price.
Maor, I don’t think you’re right. If that is the situation, then of course the conclusion is different.
Avi, on the other side too there is a public. If it is only a business or financial matter, then one should pay. And if they are not willing to sell, there may be room for maneuvering.
But the question is whether we are talking about legal actions that are “unfair,” for example the case they mentioned where they track down another country’s order and offer the seller a higher price so they will sell to us instead of to the other country.