[Avodah] Murder a Chok or Logically Compelling also KaVuA, OBriens Meat

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:58:01PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha, you wrote - Consequentialism - the best outcome for the most people
> -
> but not in all circumstances

The definition of Conesequentialism is that the moral choice is the one
with the best outcome for the most people.

So I don't fully understand what your "but" means.

If you mean you are not promoting Consequentialism, no surprise. My posts
were examples of where it doesn't work. Even though at first glance it
seems like such a logical approach to Morality.

But if one isn't a Consequentialist, there is not much weight to "but
he would have died anyway." We aren't judging morality by measuring
outcomes. So your initial question is far far weaker.

On the other hand, you later argue in favor of consequentialism. (Which I
wil point out when I get there.) So I don't understand your position.

> only where someone is anyway going to die, the boat example
> or where someone will certainly be killed, what makes your blood redder
> than his?

Excewpt that R Aqiva lets you keep that canteen of water in the desert.
You are allowed to put yourself first. R Shimon sees it as akin to aniyei
irekha qodmin -- you have a greater moral duty to those who depend on you
than to others.

> R Micha seemed to equating those cases to taking a random fellow
> and killing them for spare parts

I never made an equation. I defined theories of morality. I then followed
up with an post that ran through the same material as the first one,
explaining how that's what I am doing.

> R Micha proposes that Torah calls for Virtue Ethics
> that our primary concern is Middos Tovos ("virtues')

> No Rashi says it is determined by what HKBH sees
> one life is as good as any other life
> and two lives is always better than one life

How is that "no"? What does the value of a life have to do with assessing
an act based on the underlying middos (1) that motivate it and (2) that
it fosters?

In any case, where do you see your seifa -- that two lives is always better
than one. It was only mutar to turn in Shiva ben Bichri, who would have
died anyway either because

1- the enemy picked who. It wasn't a case of "pick someone for us to kill".
(R Yochanan)
Or
2- he was chayav misah anyway. (Reish Laqish.)

We do not make the Consequentialist approach that better outcome, eg more
lifes, means more moral. That sugya shows that in the normal case, fewer
lives besheiv ve'al ta'aseh is preferred over being actively involved in
causing fewer deaths.

R Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff told a story from Lebanon I. A few soldiers
were sent into a building to make sure it was clear of enemy. They make it
to the top of the building, give the "all clear", and many more are
sent in. The enemy blew up the building. So now he, as the rabbi on the scene
was asked this horrifying question:

The majority of chayalim are buried in the rubble, but there will be
a few soldiers on top. Do you bulldoze away the top of the pile, knowing
you will be condemning those on the top for the sake of a greater likelihood
of saving many?

RARR won't tell you what he said or what was done lemaaseh.

> That the entire town must sacrifice their life
> rather than give up one person
> is due to the Mitzvah of Kiddush HaShem

Where to you get that from the Tosefta or the Gemara? If it were about
qiddush hasheim, then why would it matter whether they pick the victim
or you do, or whether the victim would have been chayav misah in beis
din?

In any case, now you are arguing *for* Consequentilism? This is what
confuses me -- you opened by saying there are exceptions to judging
the morality actions by outcome, and now youre defending it.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The greatest discovery of all time is that
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   a person can change their future
Author: Widen Your Tent      by merely changing their attitude.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Oprah Winfrey