Q&A: How Do You Reach a Decision on Life Issues
How Do You Reach a Decision on Life Issues
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve been listening to you for several years and have read some of your books, and I wanted to ask you a question about how you formulate a position.
I understand that in every issue that comes up, there are good arguments on both sides. A law was recently passed to deport the families of terrorists. I do have some instinctive tendency to think that one of these positions is more “right,” but if I want to be honest with myself, I need to think things through deeply without turning any position into a straw man. In light of that, it isn’t clear to me how one can ultimately reach a conclusion, so I wanted to ask how you go about doing that.
It’s clear to me that there are examples—for instance, the issue of abortion—where someone who is pro-life sees abortion as the murder of babies, and therefore has the privilege of being very decisive and sharp in opposing supporters of abortion (and of course, justifiably so). But if we take more nuanced issues, where there isn’t one value or principle that is so dominant, how can one reach conclusions? On the issue of deporting terrorists’ families, I truly understand that there are good principles on both sides, so how can one decide?
Thank you
Answer
I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think there is any general answer to such a question. You need to examine all the arguments, from all sides and angles, each one on its own, and in the end weigh which of them is decisive. That weighing is an intuitive matter, and there is no algorithm for it.
For example, regarding the deportation of terrorists’ families (and I assume we’re talking about a family that knew and cooperated, or at least encouraged him in principle even if they didn’t know, because otherwise there is also the consideration of justice), there is the consideration of deterring others and of deterring the person himself, who knows the punishment his family can expect. (If he is prepared to die, then presumably deterring him won’t change much, but he may care about his family.) There is the consideration of punishment for the fact that they knew and cooperated. There is a counter-consideration: an incentive for the family and friends to become terrorists because of their anger toward us. (On the other hand, perhaps they are angry at us anyway, and there is no shortage of terrorists.) Another counter-consideration is protests around the world. There is also the counter-consideration of the difficulty of finding a destination country that will accept them. One consideration to which I would assign less weight is giving vent to our anger, and my sense is that this is the main consideration at play in these discussions.
In many cases it is worthwhile to listen to professionals who are familiar with the details and the information. This can also vary from person to person. I would not hand the decision over to them (because they too have agendas, and there is not really professional knowledge in the strict sense in these areas), but it is certainly important to hear them as well.
And finally, if you don’t have a position, you can also remain in doubt or leave the matter unresolved. Of course, there is still the question of what to do in cases of doubt, and here one must consider the costs of acting and not acting (whether there is something to lose, and how much).