[Avodah] The Delet Hakodesh and Lot

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 08:35:26PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> I forgot who it was, but famous enlightenment thinkers struggled with the
> question of whether one is morally obligated to family more than to
> strangers, and the argument was made that ideally justice and virtue should
> be so blind that it doesn't matter if one is close or not...

As I'll quote below, this is famously a centerpiece of R Shimon's in
the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. So, I've looked at the topic while
researching for Widen Your Tent. I ended up deciding not to include
any comparison to other traditions.

The Stoics had a view called oikeiosis, from the word oikos, home or
household. Here is how Hierocles describes it (1st cent BCE, quoted in
Stobaeus 4.671-673):
    Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles,
    some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on
    the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to
    each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person
    has drawn as though around a center, his own mind. This circle
    encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For
    it is virtually the smallest circle, and almost touches the center
    itself. Next, the second one further removed from the center but
    enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife,
    and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents,
    nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other
    relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then
    the circle of fellow tribesmen, next that of fellow citizens, and then
    in the same way the circle of people from neighboring towns, and then
    the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle,
    which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race. Once
    these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well-tempered man,
    in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together
    somehow towards the center, and to keep zealously transferring those
    from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones. It is incumbent
    on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those
    from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they
    were those from the third circle. ...

Over in China, Meng Tzi (hamechunah "Mencius" in Latin):
    That which people are capable of without learning is their genuine
    capability. That which they know without pondering is their genuine
    knowledge. Among babes in arms there are none that do not know to love
    their parents. When they grow older, there are none that do not know
    to revere their elder brothers. Treating one's parents as parents is
    benevolence. Revering one's elders is righteousness. There is nothing
    else to do but extend these to the world.

I stumbled into the latter when seeing an article in "aeon" by Eric
Schwitzgebel titled "How Mengzi came up with something better than the
Golden Rule"
<https://aeon.co/ideas/how-mengzi-came-up-with-something-better-than-the-golden-rule>

Two points he made that spoke to me:
    Maybe we can model Golden Rule/others' shoes thinking like this:

    1. If I were in the situation of person x, I would want to be treated
       according to principle p.
    2. Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
    3. Thus, I will treat person x according to principle p.

    And maybe we can model Mengzian extension like this:

    1. I care about person y and want to treat that person according to
       principle p.
    2. Person x, though perhaps more distant, is relevantly similar.
    3. Thus, I will treat person x according to principle p.

And:
    ... Mengzian extension is more psychologically plausible as a model of
    moral development. People do, naturally, have concern and compassion
    for others around them. Explicit exhortations aren't needed to produce
    this natural concern and compassion, and these natural reactions are
    likely to be the main seed from which mature moral cognition
    grows. Our moral reactions to vivid, nearby cases become the bases
    for more general principles and policies. If you need to reason
    or analogise your way into concern even for close family members,
    you're already in deep moral trouble.

Now, on to R Shimon:
    The entire "ani" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only
    to his substance and body. Above him is someone who feels that his
    "ani" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above him is someone who
    can include in his "ani" all of his household and family. Someone
    who walks according to the way of the Torah, his "ani" includes the
    whole Jewish People, since in truth every Jewish person is only like
    a limb of the body of the nation of Israel. In this [progression]
    there are more levels for a fully developed person, who can ingrain
    in his soul the feeling that the entire world is his 'ani,' and
    he himself is only one small limb of all of Creation. Then, his
    self-love helps him love the entire Jewish People and all of Creation.

    In my opinion, this idea is hinted at in Hillel's words, as he
    used to say, "Im ein ani li, mi li? Ukeshe'ani le'atzmi, mah ani?"
    It is fitting for each person to strive to be concerned for himself.

(Earlier Rav Shimon discussed Rabbi Aqiva, two people in the desert and
one owns enough water to just save one, `and chayekha qodmin.)

    But with this, he must also strive to understand that "Ukeshe'ani
    le'avemi, mah ani?" -- that if he constricts his "ani" to a narrow
    domain, limited to what the eye can see [is him], then his "ani" --
    what is it? Vanity and ignorable.

    If his feelings are broader and include [all of] Creation, that he
    is a great person and also like a small limb in this great body,
    then he is lofty and of great worth. In a great machine, even the
    smallest screw is important if it even serves the smallest role in
    the machine. For the whole is made of parts, and no more than the
    sum of its parts.

To Rav Shimon, this is how we resolve the centrality of chessed in avodas
Hashem with the fact that Hashem created within us a healthy dose of
self-interest. Chessed, ahavas Yisrael and ahavas haberios don't come
from selflessness, but by reflecting on self interest.

To which I would add (but didn't, because it only occured to me after
Widen was published) that this approach to chessed makes empathy and
compassion easier. After all, if my approach to chessed is through
bitul, and bowing out of their way, the other's pain is their pain,
and I am committing myself to help them as an outsider who (at least
in this situation) has lower priority. The relevant emotions would be
mercy or pity. But, if I act because I am aware of and thinking about
our interconnectedness, then I am sharing in their pain, and I am acting
from compassion and empathy.

And, thinking about the definition of "rechem", I would presume rachamim
is more like "compassion" or "empathy" than "mercy".

Okay, I'm going to stop here. There is much more I could say. In fact,
one might think I could write a book about it...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

(PS / ad: A discount on Widen Your Tent is available to Avodah members.)

-- 
Micha Berger                 The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
Author: Widen Your Tent      but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar