Q&A: Proportion Regarding Hostages and Terror Attacks
Proportion Regarding Hostages and Terror Attacks
Question
The Rabbi has written more than once about questions of public morality and hierarchies of values. I have a difficulty: it seems that the public and the state invest enormous efforts in rescuing hostages and preventing terror attacks—even at heavy cost—while in other areas, such as preventing infections in hospitals (which cause thousands of deaths a year), the response is much less dramatic.
Is there a moral or halakhic / of Jewish law justification for this different attitude? Is it only a psychological-social matter (the trauma of a terror attack versus a “quiet death”), or is there some value-based principle that prefers saving lives from “human hands” over preventing mortality from “natural” or systemic causes?
Answer
There is such an impression, but I am not sure it is correct. A great deal is invested in healthcare and in preventing infections. It is just that this is not done all at once, but through ongoing budgets, and so it does not attract attention.
It is true that there is a difference between a problem that is currently standing before us and general prevention when there is no specific person under threat from it. For example, many agree (and I am among them) that saving the hostages should be preferred over concern about future terrorism by terrorists released in a deal. Even though, in terms of the numbers, it is certainly plausible that in the future more people will be harmed than the twenty who would be released now. I explained this in one of my columns about the hostages.
Discussion on Answer
Beyond the emotional factor, a successful terror attack is a moral victory for the enemy and also motivation to carry out more attacks. So the difference can be understood rationally as well.
A brief clarification: in my previous question I spoke both about hostages and about terror attacks versus deaths from infections. Now I want to be more precise and remove the hostage issue from the picture. The question is: how does one explain, morally/halakhically, the enormous attention given to those killed in terror attacks (who are not “lying before us” in real time) as opposed to the limited attention given to deaths from hospital infections, which are seemingly higher in number and more preventable? Is there a normative preference for death caused by human malice over “systemic” death, or is this an emotional bias that should not determine priorities?