Q&A: The World to Come and a Safe Room
The World to Come and a Safe Room
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Please instruct us regarding the law for a person who does not want to go to a safe room when there is a siren. There is a ruling in the words of the Sages about one who takes his own life knowingly. If, Heaven forbid, a missile hits such a person and he is killed, does he bear a sin for endangering himself?
It seems to me that one cannot apply to such a person the full severity of the law of suicide, that he has no share in the World to Come, because he did not commit suicide intentionally; rather, he is relying on the fact that it is almost certain that the missile will not hit his apartment. The question is whether, at the very least, there is a sin here in deciding that he prefers to rely on the statistics even though there is self-endangerment if the missile does hit.
I will add further questions for discussion: would there be a difference between a protected space located in the stairwell that requires a bit of effort, and other cases?
This is a practical question, I should note.
With great respect,
Answer
Neither suicide nor anything of the sort. There is not the slightest danger here. The obligation to enter a safe room is not because of the danger but because of the categorical imperative. See my responsum here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9D/
Discussion on Answer
The categorical imperative is not about influencing others.
Hey David S.,
So it is hard for me to see any justification for observing a categorical imperative that does not affect others. There has to be some source of authority to obligate me in such a categorical imperative.
Indeed there does. The source of authority is the Holy One, blessed be He. He is the One who obligates us to act in a moral way, and that means obeying the categorical imperative. At the end of the day this also has consequential effects, of course; see column 122 and the responsum I referred to above.
What source of authority forces you to be moral?
It is a tool for moral judgment or decision-making. You do not have to agree with it, but many people find it very intuitive. In many cultures things in this style were said, like, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow" (very similar to the categorical imperative).
Here it is not completely about morality, but the principle still applies and is still intuitive: go into the safe room for the same reason that you go vote in elections or go out to demonstrate. Your individual voice changes nothing, but the categorical imperative tells you to go.
I did not see Michi's response. Let me clarify that his words do not contradict mine. He is speaking about the fact that, in general, there needs to be a source for why one should be moral, something that grounds it, and that is the Holy One, blessed be He.
I ignored that point (even though I agree) because people usually agree that one should behave morally even without admitting that there must be some validating factor.
Morality in general*
Something that validates it*
Autocorrect made a bit of a mess.
I saw the answer, but a follow-up question: suppose I am at home, nobody sees me, and there is no concern about influencing everyone else. According to your claim, if I do not obey the categorical imperative, do I have a sin?