Q&A: Morality Toward the State
Morality Toward the State
Question
Hello Rabbi,
There are those who argue that because our state is full of corruption and injustice,
that essentially strips it of moral reciprocity — and therefore it is permitted, or even a commandment, to cheat it.
According to them, morally they are not being unfair. As proof they point to the fact that parties use state funding for advertising purposes and so on without paying it back, and unlawfully. Of course, there are many more examples of dishonest politicians, unfair laws — I am sure there are facts that support the claim…
I innocently think that the fact that many people do wrong does not permit me to do wrong.
They argued against me that if I cheat and take unlawfully, I am saving the money from unfair use.
What would you argue about such a thing?
Do you have a post on the matter?
Thanks in advance
Answer
The argument is correct in principle, but the extent and proportionality matter. You can’t smash the whole system over every tiny sum of money that doesn’t look right to you. That isn’t reasonable. The question is whether, at a given level of corruption, it is justified to destroy the state. You have to weigh the alternatives against one another and apply the categorical imperative (what if everyone acted this way).
Discussion on Answer
What’s the difference between what and what? When all of us do this, the state won’t learn any lesson; it simply won’t exist. I wrote that this is a question of degree.
https://mikyab.net/%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%aa/%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%91-%d7%9c%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%90%d7%99%d7%9d/. (In the comments there, about the response concerning the categorical imperative)
What’s the difference, Rabbi? Seemingly here too, if all of us behave this way, then the state will understand that it can’t keep playing with our money however it wants and will start getting its act together…