Q&A: Their Lives Take Precedence Over His Life
Their Lives Take Precedence Over His Life
Question
On the margins of the statement by the rabbi of Safed after the suicide, it was said that their lives take precedence over his life, and with that they tried to justify publishing the recording that led him to suicide.
The subtext of that statement, in my view, is this: we must publicly denounce the attacker even if there is a reasonable suspicion that he will not be able to bear the burden of shame and will take his own life (even though it was quite clear that he had already been stripped of all public positions, and it does not seem that all possible avenues had been exhausted)?
On the other hand, some argue that a religious court (one does not expect this of journalists) has, at the very least, responsibility toward a suspect, and not every means may be used against him in order to get him to agree to come and be judged. (And there is something of a proof from the High Court ruling on terrorists, which limited the use of force in their interrogation.)
Answer
The question is whether there is benefit in publishing these things, and what that benefit is. In my opinion there are several benefits: 1. Speeding up the handling of Walder himself and preventing his future offenses (as is known, if things are not publicized there usually is no handling of it, neither by the police nor by society). 2. Preventing offenses and deterring others. 3. Raising awareness that this can happen to anyone, and giving credibility to the complainants. 4. Assisting the complainants’ situation.
When weighing whether to publish, one must consider what level of benefit the publication will have. If there is significant benefit, then in my opinion one should not take into account the concern that he might commit suicide. If he wants to, let him commit suicide. He is harming himself. No one is supposed to suffer so that Walder will not commit suicide. No one murdered him. He killed himself. Whoever published this at most helped that along a bit, and I do not see a problem with that so long as there is significant benefit to the publication, as above.
When the media published the names of others, I did not hear everyone complaining and saying that it was forbidden to publish. It was clear to everyone that there was a public interest and benefit in such publications. So why does Walder deserve special treatment? The next person after him will think several times before deciding to do such things, and the publication and the suicide will deter him even more.
Discussion on Answer
Because of a categorical imperative, or even in a single isolated case that no one will ever know about, there is still no obligation?
Hanging it on a categorical imperative in a case like this sounds like “for the better ordering of society”—meaning that in the present case we may lose, but overall and over time we gain, etc. And if that estimated assessment is stable enough, then a consequentialist would not disagree with it. But it seems, apparently, that even in an isolated case, etc., your view still stands (investing one shekel to save Reuven from nature — an absolute obligation; and to save Reuven from Shimon — an absolute obligation; and to save Reuven from Reuven — ha! And this is one of the hidden secrets of the Torah, and one has no permission to question it).
In my life I’ve never encountered a secret so simple to reason out.
So is there use of a categorical imperative here, or even without it?
“One who publicly whitens the face of his fellow.”
In every trial they publicly humiliate the accused.
Think about that and you’ll understand.
If someone says to me, give me a שקל or I’ll kill myself, am I obligated to give him a שקל? Of course not. Let him go kill himself for all I care. So too, some other concession (giving up the benefits mentioned above) is also not an obligation just in order to spare suicides.