Q&A: A Proposed Paradox
A Proposed Paradox
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I thought of a paradox, and I’d be glad to hear a refutation from the Rabbi if possible.
It goes like this: if your son asks you to eat whipped-cream cake every day at every meal, you would of course refuse. He would argue that it tastes very good to him and does him good. You would reply that you agree it tastes very good, but it is also very harmful to the body, and when you make an overall calculation that weighs both dimensions, there is great harm here, and therefore you do not agree.
If that calculation is correct, why not replace the terrorists’ diet with whipped-cream cakes? I assume nobody would agree to that.
There are a few assumptions that for the sake of the paradox I am making here:
1. That this is permitted under international law (or that we don’t care)
2. That economically it does not harm us (or at least not to such an extent that it would keep us from killing the terrorists, even if only in a few years)
3. That we have no more efficient and practical way to “abuse” them.
Of course, we would agree that it’s a good idea to give this to a terrorist who understands nutrition and is very careful about it. But the question is also about terrorists who would be happy to receive such abuse
Answer
Assumption 3 pulls the rug out from under the discussion. The simple answer is that we should not give them this, because there is a way to give them food that is both harmful and not tasty. In assumption 3 you are assuming there is no such food. So what do you want from me? What paradox do you see here? It’s roughly like asking: if we have no other way to reach the moon except by riding a winged horse, is it correct to ride a winged horse in order to get there?
All this is on the assumption that eating whipped-cream cake counts as abuse. Some will tell you that it is not abuse because it tastes good. And that it is worth it even at the cost of shortening life. In that case too, the question does not arise in the first place.
In short, this is empty pilpul.
Discussion on Answer
You understood the problem very well: if you want to achieve X and the only way to achieve X is A, then one should act by way A. So what is the question?
There is no paradox here, not even a whiff of a paradox. It is empty pilpul because this is a logical tautology.
I didn’t understand the problem with assumption 3—suppose there is no other way (or there are other ways but they are not economically efficient). As for the winged horse—again, assuming that this is the only way and that it works, then why not actually?
“All this is on the assumption that eating whipped-cream cake counts as abuse”—of course, this question is only for someone who makes that assumption, and that is anyone who would not give it to his child.
“In short, this is empty pilpul”—but isn’t that the nature of a paradox?