Q&A: The State’s Obligation to Rescue Someone from a Dangerous Pit
The State’s Obligation to Rescue Someone from a Dangerous Pit
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Suppose a person fell into a dangerous pit, and the professionals estimate that it would take 10 people to bring him out of the pit, and the chance of each of them dying in the rescue operation is 20 percent, so that in terms of expected value it would be better to leave the person in the pit. In such a case, is it right to leave him in the pit, or should he nevertheless be rescued?
Best regards,
Answer
If we are talking about the considerations of a private individual, there is no obligation to do this. A person is not supposed to put himself at risk in order to save another. This is not a question of expected value (how many people will die). To be sure, with negligible risk it would seem that one should not take it into account, but 20% is not negligible at all.
As for a state, one could argue that it has an obligation to rescue, and therefore there the considerations may be different. There may also be a difference between a situation created through the state’s fault (like the hostages) and other situations.
Discussion on Answer
If the gap is not large, then in my opinion yes. Expected-value calculations are in the realm of "perhaps," and doubt (risk) does not override certainty (rescue). One must remember that the future risk also depends on us—how we defend ourselves, how we conduct ourselves.
But I seem to remember that you said regarding a live coal in the public domain that although it involves only a small risk to any individual, because many people pass through there, it is treated as a certain danger. So here too, why is this considered "perhaps" and not certain?
It is considered certain in relation to desecrating the Sabbath. But not in relation to other lives.
Why should it be considered certain only for that and not for this? After all, if we treated it as certain regarding desecrating the Sabbath, that apparently indicates that this is a certain danger and not a doubtful danger.
?
Because desecration of the Sabbath is permitted even for a doubtful danger to life. True, for a very slight doubt they did not permit it, and about that I wrote that a doubt affecting a large population is not a slight doubt. But one cannot say that there is certain loss of life here. After all, these are estimates that depend on the army and on our policy and on their success. And beyond that, by now everyone already understands that estimates in this area are not worth much. Therefore, doubt does not override certainty.
So regarding the hostages, suppose the professionals estimate that releasing X terrorists in a deal to save the hostages will, in expected value terms, lead to more deaths in the future than the number of hostages who would be freed. In that case, is it right to make the deal?