Q&A: Fulfilling a Social Obligation When the Price Is Too High
Fulfilling a Social Obligation When the Price Is Too High
Question
I am uncertain about the following question, which is relevant to many different situations:
If society imposes an obligation on a person for some service that is not worth the cost of that obligation to him, is he morally required to fulfill it?
For example: a person prays in a synagogue that charges high membership dues. For him, using the synagogue is not worth the price being demanded, and if he were forced to pay it he would prefer to pray in another synagogue farther away. Is there a moral problem with avoiding payment as long as he continues to pray in that synagogue, or must he leave?
Another example: a person lives in a country where military conscription is in force. For him, living in that country is not worth the price involved in military service, and if he were forced to enlist he would prefer to move to another country. Is there a moral problem with continuing to live in that country while evading the draft, or must he emigrate elsewhere?
On the one hand, one could argue that it is immoral to receive benefit from society without giving anything back, and therefore such a situation is out of the question. On the other hand, perhaps it is not reasonable to obligate a person to pay a price higher than the benefit he receives, and therefore as long as his evasion of his obligation does not harm the public (because this is only one person), there is no problem.
What do you think?
Answer
If it doesn’t seem worthwhile to you, then leave.
You do not get to determine the price of the deal when it has two sides. Would it occur to you that if, from your perspective, some book is worth 20 shekels and the seller demands 50, you would be allowed to cheat him? Don’t buy it.
Well… a book that’s worth 20 shekels to you and they ask 50 for it is not comparable to compulsory military service, which is much more convenient to be without. A classic example of “decrees of the law”…..