Whence Cometh Morals

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Shagar’s libertarianism: a modified model of silence

R Shagar accepts the moral relativistic aspects of postmodern ideology. In this, he remarks that instead of protesting others for their ethics he would remain silent. Yet how far does this silence go? 

Off the bat, R Shagar’s examples are horrid. Human rights organizations would have a field day. Primitive glorified terror. Druze killing young women, he chooses to desist. If a Druze man was about to murder his sister he wouldn’t say anything. He would allow the action to take place. Ambiguous concerning context. R Shagar basing himself on Rebbe Nachman acknowledges the desire to interfere but be silent. Don’t protest don’t push back. Don’t reprimand. It sounds off putting. It sounds awful and agonizing. It isn’t a method of subverting another’s ways. It is a mere recognition of the separate reality and acceptance.

This model seems quite similar to the postmodern world but it is far from it. It may be exposed by postwar-French thinkers but it is not the reality of the global world. The battle of truth persists in all institutions from government buildings to college campuses. Each side insists its side is the correct one. Nations and even a global entity believes it is acting on the side truth. International and national problems are to be solved by the world order, NGOs and spectators. The motto of protest has yet to cease. Liberals continue to push the war in Ukraine, college students enforce safe spaces and adults block traffic. This is all do it my way or else. This is protest not acceptance.

Till his death, R Sacks promoted protest as faith. Relying on the prophetic against immorality and evil. Faith is a deep devotion to correctness. To fight against injustice and corruption. Using Jewish values to fight against the horrors of the world. Tikkun Olam as the slogan of global paradigm. While recognizing the issues in the global world he saw this as fixing the issue. In line with many modern thinkers the Jewish value to the global stage was imperative. The extent the Jewish value is imposed or projected depends. The Jewish value either was to be an advocate or a defence. R Sacks uniquely promoted as a protest but in the larger sociopolitical makeup it is not novel.

R Shagar implies a different model. He asserts we remain silent. Contrary to the global outrage and NGO campaigning. The protesting charge lauded by R Sacks and advocate personality is uprooted by R Shagar. He insists on apparently letting it play out. There is much ambiguity in his statements. It is unclear if silence is always the answer or in certain situations. Given the extreme example brought it is plausible to categorize it in two separate realms: international and national. The third category would be the measure of the action. So far as to be silent for any of the non-noahide laws. Yet he abstains from just that. 

There is a position where interference at least on a halakhic level means interference insofar as noahide laws are followed. Even in rabbinic literature it is not clear when and how this is enforced. There is no mention of Jews invading another country to ensure noahide laws are upheld. Seemingly, a comprise between R Sacks and R Shagar would be silent for everything until noahide laws are broken. Following the biblical and more so rabbinic models of halakhic morality, protest is not only warranted but required. Is this military invasion or mere vocal objection can be debated. While a nice middle ground that may fit Talmudic sources, it is not brought by R Shagar thereby omitting it from contention.

Since R Shagar accepts silence with the case of the Druze killing women, it clearly details a non-Jew committing murder for ritual purposes. Silence is passive response rather that openly permitting the heinous action as to not justify it. R Shagar recoiled at the other ethic in light of cultural differences. R Shagar’s intent seems to divide by different cultures so there are two possibilities: international indifference and national diversity. The former is quite simple, what another country has nothing to do with one’s own country. Their ways are their ways and not our job to interfere. A hard isolationist anti-imperialist stance. The latter corresponds to religious exceptions. Having different citizens with different laws would lead to injustice corruption and worse anarchy. Archaic rituals are permissible on the basis of cultural aspects that supersede the state regulation.  

It is important to qualify the latter. Many think this is a dangerous option. The separation of church and state doesn’t disqualify the church acting out. Many liberals believe that this separation needs to dissolve the archaic horrible traditions. The goal of the state is to protect the non-religious and religious who wish to disembark from their old traditions. The state as superior to the church needs to protect these disparate citizenry. The state may condemn harming children but circumcision as a religious ritual is permissible. Not only because it is not imposing on others but also because it is consented by the party. These are the rules. The Druze example is quite difficult since the girl did not accept her family ways and was under the state law whereby the state would have an obligation to protect. 

The international moral ethic counters the imperialist charge. The objective ethic by a particular group is insufficient means to impose on others. This is a slight on the democratic countries invading other countries to eradicate communism. While it is also anti-imperialism of the nineteenth century it is more for European interference than ceasing slavery. Globalists who advocate an objective ethic seemingly would decry the imperial conquest but praise the imperial abolitionism. Ignorance breeds the latter. Though still, this non-interference permits continued assault. It is not a matter of political difference but crime ridden agony. This also questions whether Europeans were right in forcing the Aztecs to stop human sacrifice. 

Imperialism had its issues but it was motivated by ethical causes. With all its disastrous and even devilish intent the moral outcry was the panic that began the interference. They saved hundred of thousands from sacrifice and freed hundreds of thousands from bondage. Seems to be an imperfect liberator. One who begins good to then turn evil. To all those who decry imperialism must reckon with the persisted primitive norms. That is exactly what R Shagar offers. Though it is not clear whether it need be political or ritual. As generational culture is protected but not systemic governmental repression. It seems a full isolationist theme would not distinguish between religion and reason as the culture is a matter of both. A strict moral isolationism to global affairs.

The national moral ethic is far more intriguing and intruding. This is most often reflected in religious rights. The anti-abortion stance is of the religious who wish to either ban it federally or on a state level. Prior to 2005, it was illegal in certain areas for same sex couples to marry even Obama ran on traditional marriage for his first time. Yet up to 2015 state by state accepted the legality of it. Inside the nation, different sectors were practicing different rules. Such that depending on location one could or couldn’t marry. In the same way, slavery was permitted in certain areas and banned in other areas. The secular state has its ethic that permits bodily autonomy. Homosexuals can marry but only in non-religious/traditional areas. The position could apply to head coverings which have been banned in som western nations and potentially circumcision as well. 

There is a significant difference between abortion+gay marriage and head coverings+circumcision. The former are national issues. It is not so much that our community can’t do it but no one can do it. This is the religious hypocrisy of church and state. The church does its own thing and the state its thing. When the church attempts to influence the state it burdens the irreligious which even if morally correct from their perspective is not the state’s job. Abortion and gay marriage are examples of interference since it is not so much that states do what they want but even that the federal government can ban. Though even on a state level this may be dangerous as not everyone in the state is religious. The state is big enough to encompass diversity and as a secular organ ought to uphold diversity and not bans. If communities wish to dispel this type than that can be debated but the state level is state a political apparatus not a church defender. 

Alternatively, head coverings and circumcision are solely religious practices not imposed on the public. This sides with the Druze example almost. As long as the religious are doing their thing, they can act as they wish. They are not hurting others and not bothering others. Taking offence to their perceived immorality is not one’s job to protest or dismantle. The religious in their circles have autonomy. Just as a women has boldly autonomy so too the religious community. Even more a consenting religious community. The state is to protect citizens, if the citizens are consenting then there is no problem. If others aren’t being washed up in their dogmatic ways then there is no issue. For the government to ban and interfere in this program is to upend religious freedoms for a state ethic. The state is then cracking down on religion which is wrong.

Upon defining the differences, it really depends on where R Shagar is going. Is it only one’s civil society? Is it only imposing religious rule? Is it only violent religious norms? Or is it all religious action? Given the Druze example, R Shagar is here dealing with a national issue and of violent execution. It doesn’t answer if ambiguity to other nations but if he responds negatively here than all the more so internationally. R Shagar’s answer is moot. He says we should trust our truth but that doesn’t answer. That is what people have been doing forever. The hellenists, Christians and imperialists were trusting their truth when they interfered with otherness to ensure they follow their way. Silence is the extreme case but such a possibility to one’s truth is dogmatically insufferable. 

Silence is contextual. Depending on one’s opinion. R Shagar’s silence option on the postmodern rhetoric is itself left ambiguous because who knows which model is better. Relativism questions silence as a legitimate option. Yet what of R Shagar’s real beliefs is hard to tell but following closely may divulge that which can be tempered and even if not can be modified. The Druze example may be incidental or intentional. It may be fair to focus the latter so to ignore international issues. Anti-globalist and anti-imperialist in the true postmodern ideology is inescapably nationalistic especially with the neo-national resurgence. Since he questions violent situations, it may be brought as an extreme or an illustrative example. This takes us back to the gay marriage vs head covering debate. Though murder is more severe than head covering and even circumcision, the case revolves around the head covering theme. A case of sole religious duty.

Yet this is important because it is a little different from the standard church-state debate since it is not only the state’s interests but also the girl’s. If head covering is consented by the parties partaking then there is no issue and the state’s moral compass need not intrude. Yet if one of the parties though fated to the group refuses to partake in the group’s affairs, does the state interfere? Is this similar to wife beating and child negligence? Is this a case beyond religious ethics? The state interferes to protect the party uninterested and forced into a box they never chose? This Druze case was not of a girl who consented to be sacrificed or be tortured but was tortured for her disobedience that she surely accepted. She seemingly wished to be out of the system but the system did not afford her that luxury. 

This case revolves around a secular state caring for the individual. Based on the case, she wasn’t defaming the religious openly but acting out. She decided to live more secularly which her family saw as deplorable and demeaning. Her brother took into his own hands to murder the devil his sister had become. From the perspective of the state, she is free to do as she likes insofar as she is not hurting others. The separation of church and state permits people to live amongst religious without being forced to be so. As a citizen of the state, the state is to protect those who are no longer religious. Whether it be harassment or murder those instigating are at fault. It is the state’s duty to protect. Had she mentioned the fear of death or complained about familial harassment, the start would comply forcing the family to keep away by court order. 

How far can the state invade the privacy of family? Criminal acts are backed not by “intervention” but by law. Law is by virtue governmental intervention. It is in the interest of the state to protect its citizenry. Therefore domestic violence whether spousal abuse or child abuse is to be investigated and resolved by the state. The state’s ability lies in its ethos. It is the ultimate authority by law to defend adversaries from near and far. That includes family matters. Domestic violence applies to non-consensual expression. If one side is coerced it is abuse. By the same logic if a family member is harassed for disagreement, the abuse is to be reported and protected. International groups need not challenge the ethics but the state ought to have stepped in if she had spoken up. To honor the rule of law, the state must prosecute the murderer by the state’s penalty not the religious potential exemption. 

This is a more compromised position. The state has the interest of the irreligious against the religious family. The irreligious’ citizenship is sufficient to protect her from her family’s actions and their actions are to be prosecuted if they rise to the level of legal abuse. The alternative is to allow the family to do as they wish. This would mean that by virtue of being part of the family the family is allowed to act accordingly. Whether because she had defamed their tradition or embarrassed the family. The culture acts in its best interest. Whether those born into wish to leave is not their choice. This is the hard anti-modernist. Fate is a part of the system and desiring out is but an attack on the system. There is even some communistic sympathy as the patriot is but the only respected fellow. While it was plausible for the family to disown her and relinquish ties by virtue of their own religiosity they may not have been able to do. Their dogma was more important. Her death was but a consequence of her desertion. 

This logic assumes that even a wife beater could potentially defend himself on religious grounds. The only difference would be the lack of substantial backing, though there is presumably textual evidence. The state may debate the extent of manipulation of religion versus actual practice but if the wife doesn't consent to the abuse, the state must interfere. The hole R Shagar dug is entirely different than the anti-globalist paradigm. According to his logic, even national matters of moral significance are debatable. The only one safe is the secular man who has never known tradition. There is no tradition, no family coercion to ensure he uphold a doctrine. Fate is cruel but apparently eternal. The family's shame for her decisions are their own. Even if she is legally an adult, the family has responsibility for her. In a twist of pre-premodern morality, the status of the family ethos takes precedence. There is no leaving the tribe and there is no deviating from the norm. Quite a scary imposition that the state permits.  

Yet there is also a difference between verbal assault and violence. Here taken too far. Is this violent offence tenable? Is this mirrored in domestic abuse? Is there an exemption for a religious tradition or for a culture? On the one hand the modernist stance permits various conditions per culture. The absence of truth permits each to do as they like to their own. Yet there are still limits. The modernist strand has rules that it imposes. The soft postmodern stance accepts multiplicity insofar as consent but the hard postmodern stance is multiplicity without state consequence. The state only steps in if the tradition impedes on non-tribal members. Former tribal members are cursed by their fate. Their family can decide their fate. The irreligious have besmirched and this is their punishment. This cruelty is rather extreme. Given R Shagar promotion of soft justice, it seems consent would be the major factor which fits with the murder charge as well as head covering. 

The state is obligated to step only if the victim seeks protection from the family. The state permits multiplicity. It provides the freedom to practice but that must be not impeded by a lack of consent. The state has a duty to its citizens and if the citizen is being forced into an uncomfortable or dangerous situation the state must comply. The state provides the freedom to act independently but the tribal must adhere to the state’s laws. The state is the protective agent. It responds to citizen cries. Whether to the abusive spouse or abusive family member. The citizen is entitled to those protections lest she be harmed for his beliefs. She is a citizen and state protection precludes physical distress. 

This leads to an interesting question of an agunah. Under this logic, the family can’t deal with them as they would like. If they wish to harm him he would be entitled to the state’s protection. Yet there is a caveat as the husband desires protection due to his own misdeeds. He is afraid of harm because he is doing harm. While the state doesn’t recognize religious legitimacy—metaphysical torture isn’t physical torture—the truth to that harm is real. Therefore because the husband is manipulating the state to help him by harming someone else, the state may reject that help. He is a citizen and entitled to protection from certain death but the torture he is imposing on another must be taken into account. This is not mere shame but devilish. In the case of an agunah, soft postmodernism isn’t just about subjective truth but the state acknowledging the truth of the culture. It is here that the state may decline or even if protecting allow others to civilly challenge him.

There is a communitarian argument where locals gather together to route out evil. This needs no intervention and rather polices itself. This is a difficult task because of accountability and threshold. Under these guidelines, the brother may not held liable because of their tradition but the state must uphold order as the encompassing sociopolitical fabric. Though there may an option for communitarian policing. It exists in certain  Islamic communities in London but this must be just to their people not imposed on others. Does justice prevail? At times yes and at time no. For the church to reside independently of the state the communitarian aspect must supersede state obligation and liability. If there is a domestic violence problem and neighbours route out the violent spouse or protect the children there is no need for interventionism. Though here the neighbourhood is a reflection of the state. In the tribal case the community is against the state legislation and can be overridden. The seeming answer is not one of truth but of value. If you don’t like the state’s protective clause move somewhere else. The state has a duty and even neighbours as agents of the state have a duty of protection.   

There is a line which is non-consent. It isn’t about violence or magnitude. It is whether the past member of the community remains a member of the state. If the latter is true even in the most anarchic substratum, the state intervenes. The state’s purpose is protection of its people. It is built by the people for the people. The separation of church and state engenders to permit those who desire otherwise to choose a different destiny. The family may not like it but that is the freedom of the modern age. The lack of truth doesn’t diminish shared values and intuition. The goal of the postmodern view is not to cultivate an objective order but to cultivate a harmonious society. One of diversity and consent.  

In a way this modified form of the extreme case brought by R Shagar can be met with R Sacks' moral responsibility. R Sacks speaks about going global with biblical values which hone moral responsibility. Moral responsibility is in of itself a postmodern gift as it does not offer a creed nor subject specific conditions. It is entirely reactionary and reciprocal. It is a response to the downtrodden. Assisting when they need help. This responsibility is to the state. The state has an obligation to the citizenry and to defend against foe near and far. Silence is approved by the state insofar as the the religious are consenting amongst themselves. Imposing on others and silence can no longer last. The state's moral responsibility for its people outweighs the relativism of morality. Since responsibility as a value has nothing to do with specific actions and more to do with coercion. The postmodern ethic doesn't abolish right and wrong but instead protects those wish to be free of the system. The state's protection clause kicks in and the no more tribal member receives the state's treatment. 

This intervention-silence dialectic is situational and also biblically sourced. Nathan comes to King David rebuking him for killing Uriah and taking his wife. David relents to his sin and God punishes him. God and Nathan take responsibility for David's sinful actions. David himself then takes responsibility by marrying Bathsheba caring for her and naming her son Solomon as his successor. Elijah has a few battles with King Ahab most notably with the Mount Carmel incident. Yet when Ahab steals Naboth's vineyard and kills him, God quickly calls Elijah. Elijah confronts Ahab and punishes him severely. Elijah prophesied that cruel ends would be met. Ahab's son was shot in the back falling in over in Naboth's vineyard and his wife Jezebel was thrown off a cliff. Ahab himself was killed and his kingship torn away as tore away the land of Naboth. 

Even the talmudic line may represent this ethical dominion. Accordingly, David never sinned would proves the postmodern rhetoric. How can you say that he didn't sin? Technically he didn't because Uriah was a rebel for denying the king's request and yet David said "I sinned". There is a disposition between what the text says and what the Sage says. Technically he didn't sin but he did sin. The paradox is recognised by legal right but moral wrong. The responsibility of God and the prophet beyond the legality beyond the religious rule for proper intervention. In the biblical case, the injustice was through legal norms yet divine/prophet intervention overrode the norm. Since God was the highest national norm the king's actions here the state in the nation wrongly led to the death of a man. 

The responsibility God showed to Uriah even if he was rebelled against the king. Even if the girl rebelled against her tradition, it is not the states' job to let it go. Had Uriah been accused rebellion he would tried convicted and killed not murdered without any court or legal proceedings. The responsibility of God is to ensure the norm is carried out. The prophet is the check to the king therefore he confronts him for this brute injustice. Even if the murder was justified, the executions was not. The state intervenes when the harm done exceeds the consensual format and exceeds the legal applicability. The state has a duty to its citizens. Uriah's bill of divorce was for agunah not sleeping around. Divine responsibility and prophetic responsibility is for religious accountability. For when the religious communities go too far. That is the state's job. An interferer when injustice is accounted.  

R Shagar’s silence is restricted to his own beliefs. The international persona lives by its motto though debate and discussion are warranted. More so the anti-imperialist execution loses its moral passion in the face of such lack of truth. The neo-nationalist dive looks inward for a more internal networking. For people and communities to do as they wish. To decide their fate on their terms. Intervention is necessitated and required when consent is not met. When one seeks out help from the apparatus holding order together. Harmony is key in a world of value.