[Avodah] PIKUACH NEFESH

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:48:03PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote: (IOW,
: "...it is about how people act more than outcomes.)
: 
: I totally agree; however, outcomes indicate how people act. So that if
: someone willingly allows two thousand people to die because they refuse
: to shoot down a plane that they know is going into a building and it is
: certain everyone in that plane will be killed, then IMHO the people have
: acted irresponsibly and the blood of the two thousand are on their hands.

My "IOW" was an attempt to quickly translate consequentialism vs
deontologism.

As I had hoped the example in the gemara would show -- and if not, that
you would skim the article I pointed to to see more about -- these are
two fundamentally different ways of viewing ethics:

Is the most ethical decision that one that minimizes the number murdered,
or the number of murderers? The gemara, in saying it's better for all to
die than for them to pick one of their number to be killed, appears to
be deontological. After all, whomever they turned over would die anyway
if all get killed. However, by selecting a victim, they join the number
of murderers.

Really, unlike R' Michael J Harris's paper, I could see two difference
ethical theories that could fit the machloqes R' Yochanan and Reish
Laqish.

Deontological ethics is really about each person doing their duty. Making
sure I do not violate "thou shalt not murder."

Virtue ethics is about each person decelopping themseves as moral
beings. By taking part in killing, one can more readily delve into that
pit again.

I might say that Brisk sees halakhah in deontological terms, Telzh,
in virtue ethical ones.

Neither, though, would say that halakhah takes a consequentialist
approach to interpersonal mitzvos. Crimes of ommission are not as bad
as ones of commission that yeild the same outcome. Outcome is not the
primary moral measure, being good is.

Probably a conseqence of the conflict brtween Providence and free will.
It creates a disconnect between my choice of action and its impact
on others. I must do what I must do; it's Hashem's job to script
how that changes others' lives, whether I succeed or fail, unintended
consequences, etc...

: OTOH, if the scenario were that the people were not going to die and by killing them you saved a million others, then I fully concur with the rest of the logic, even though others would disagree.
: 
: I know the argument you may use is that HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE IN THE PLANE
: WERE GOING TO BE KILLED ANYWAY? We are talking hypothetically. But if you
: didn't know, then I would take your position. I'm saying if you know 100%
: that the innocent victims in the plane are going to all be killed (via
: the plane crashing into the WTC) and thousands of more innocent victims
: will be killed, then the responsible action would be to destroy that
: plane before it does a lot more damage. If there were a plane with
: innocent people piloted by terrorists were going to drop a bomb on the
: White House, there is no question it would be shot down ASAP. Is the
: president's blood any redder?
: 
: R' CM wrote: 
: > Of course you are right, they were all doomed. But we only know that with
: > certainty with 20/20 hindsight. Prior to these events we had no certainty
: > that the passengers were all doomed. The air force might have talked the
: > hijackers down or some passengers could possibly have survived the crash
: > (not likely in hindsight but a possibility that could have been possible
: > without the benefit of hindsight) or they could have missed their target
: > (the inexperienced novice terrorist pilot was piloting the plane).
: 
: You are absolutely correct and I addressed that issue in my response
: to R' Micha. I was speaking theoretically and hypothetically. However,
: let me ask you THIS scenario. There were two planes that crashed into
: the WTC. (Again theoretically) if it was established after the first
: plane crashed that a second one was following (and through radio contact,
: etc.) there was no doubt the second was going to do the same, would you
: have a problem with shooting it down prior to the crash? Or I'll even
: make it easier. They see the plane headed right toward the Towers and we
: have advanced technology to push a button which will blow up the plane
: prior to the crash -- would you say that is issur also?
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
: 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507