Free choice and moral responsibility
Hello Rabbi, recently, as someone who lives in a religious community, I came to the conclusion that most people do not truly have an informed choice and decision regarding their religious path, and this raised serious questions for me on a moral level.
On the surface, it is very likely that the average jihadist has no choice about whether to be one (because he is probably stupid/brainwashed/believes in an "innocent" belief and therefore does not examine ideological reasoning), which means that he is completely forced to be a jihadist and cannot be held morally responsible for it.
If this is the case, if I am attacked by 2 terrorists, should I let them kill me, because they are not guilty of their actions (so they do not deserve to die) and if I kill them, is it a loss of 2 lives compared to my loss alone if they kill me? Same at the national level in larger numbers.
(I'm joining a combat unit soon, hopefully it won't be relevant)
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- It is not true that a person has no choice. He certainly does. The circumstances in which he lives and acts do not relieve him of responsibility, but at most constitute an argument for mitigating the punishment. When you catch a thief who has lived a hard life, it does not absolve him, but perhaps mitigates his punishment. It seems to me that even you, as a retired Guzmba (according to the nickname you have chosen for yourself here), can attest to this.
- Although a person has a choice in almost every situation, it is true that sometimes a person reaches erroneous conclusions despite exercising his best judgment. A person living in a Jewish or Muslim environment will make decisions based on different religious assumptions, and this will truly be his position. In such a situation, it is not correct to say that he had no choice, but that he made the wrong choice and was being coerced in his opinion. A person can freely choose the wrong option, and that does not mean that he did not have a choice. Indeed, someone who is coerced in his opinion (i.e., has formed a wrong position and done so according to his best judgment) is exempt from responsibility for his actions, both in halakhic and in general. This is coercion in opinions. I have often written here that even a Nazi or ISIS member who was convinced that he was acting correctly cannot be considered evil. His actions are evil, but he is not. See, for example, column 372.
- But none of this has anything to do with the law of persecutors. Even a person who acts in good faith and without guilt (anus) if he endangers me is permitted to defend himself against him. For example, a minor who pursues me, even though he lacks discretion and the ability to make decisions, is permitted and appropriate for me to kill him as a defense. To kill a persecutor, guilt is not required, only that he be the cause of the problem. Whoever is the cause of the problem must be responsible for solving it, that is, paying the price necessary to solve it. This is not punishment but bearing responsibility, and therefore guilt is not required here.
- Once a persecutor's law applies, it is of no importance how many persecutors there are. Even if there are ten little ones chasing me, I have the right to harm them all in order to be saved. For example, according to the law, a person is not allowed to give up his life to save many from death. The priority of many lives over a single one can only be expressed in a completely balanced situation (for example, in a symmetrical troll dilemma, for example: in the dilemma of whether to save one or many drowning in a river).
- This is of course the case on the level of an individual. On the public level, a person must serve in the army to protect the public, and this is not similar to the previous discussion. This is not prohibited like personal risk to save many others. And this is for two reasons: A. In the public, there is a distribution of costs. Everyone serves in the army and everyone does it in turn. Otherwise, we will all die. Therefore, this should not be considered as my risk for others, but rather a distribution of risks of all of us among all of us. B. When it comes to a real suicide mission (and not just a risk), there is no permission to force a soldier to go on it. This is correct halakhically and morally, and is accepted in IDF ethics. A well-known case is that of Yehuda Ken Dror, the driver of the jeep in Mitla, who went on his suicide mission as a volunteer. Therefore, in the case you described, where there is a real risk to you, even in military service there is no obligation to do so.
- In conclusion, I will say that if I haven't convinced you, I think you should inform the army and your parents. I assume they will already be working to prevent you from being drafted into combat service, as I am sure they would not want you to give up your life to save the lives of two terrorists. Even if they cannot explain it to you in a rational and conceptual way, people usually have a healthy moral intuition, and it precedes the rationalizations we make for it.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer