Q&A: Is it permissible to endanger human life for personal advancement?
Is it permissible to endanger human life for personal advancement?
Question
The name of the Ministry of National Security hints at its role and responsibility.
Over the past month the ministry has been without a director-general after the previous director-general resigned.
On Simchat Torah we sadly saw the ministry not functioning, and citizens paid with their lives for that lack of functioning.
This morning it was reported that a new director-general has been appointed to the ministry, which now, during wartime, is more important than ever.
The job went to a certain Elazar Ben HaRosh, who has never held a position on a similar scale and has never served in any security role in the past (he refuses to specify what he did in his military service, or whether he served at all).
I understand that the position comes with a high salary, lavish benefits, and great prestige.
Is one obligated to refuse such an appointment because the lack of experience will cost human lives, or is that the responsibility of the appointing minister, and the director-general can relax in the official car with a clear conscience?
Answer
I thought about deleting this, but I am nevertheless leaving my answer here as a sign for contentious people.
I understand that you want to protest things that seem improper to you. But the way to do that is not to raise an irrelevant question in the responsa section here on the site, but rather to write your own protest post, on Facebook or anywhere else.
Discussion on Answer
This question also isn’t entirely clean. As a rule, if there is no one better than he is, then there is no question. If there is, then assuming the appointing party is acting on professional grounds, it is permissible to present yourself as a candidate. Our government is not competent and does not act on professional grounds, and therefore there you should not take a position unless in your opinion you are the best one under the existing circumstances.
The Rabbi is right.
I would be glad if the original question were deleted, and instead I would ask whether a person may accept an appointment that he knows he is not capable of carrying out in the best possible way.
On the business level this can lead to financial loss; in certain roles it can lead to loss of human life.
Is there a distinction between the cases of money and life?
Is there an obligation not to take a role that is beyond my abilities, or is the responsibility only on the appointing party?
In the other direction, may a person refuse an appointment that he could carry out far better than others, if by not taking the position financial loss would be caused, and in certain roles loss of human life?
What if the person knows who will be appointed if he refuses to take the role upon himself, and he is aware that the other candidate lacks the appropriate qualifications?
Is there a distinction between financial loss and loss of human life?