Martha Tarasco Michel, Ph.D.
Social responsibility in Judaism
Martha Tarasco MD PhD. Anahuac University. School of Bioethics
Key words: Golden rule, circumcision, bioethics
- Introduction
Social responsibility is a shared goal; in other words, there is no social responsibility with the exclusion of the Other. In this sense, I believe that there exists a common ethics base that must be considered. [1] The first section of this participation will cover that same notion of "social responsibility" from the perspective of the UNESCO Declaration regarding Bioethics and Human Rights. Thus, we will analyze the dilemma between individual/society (liberty/equality) which generates the use of said term. We will also sustain in this first part -- with an example based on Judaism -- how a religious belief can challenge this concept.
In the second section, we may understand that diverse religions place or can place different emphasis on this common base. Judaism, like any other religion, has its normativity which helps create what we today know as social responsibility. Here we try to demonstrate that some rabbinic texts and the Torah are interwoven to provide some guidelines towards responsible action.
Finally, as a conclusive note, paths and lines of common thought will be pointed out that exists between Judaism and the Declaration.
- Social Responsibility.
A good exercise for the analysis of this notion in Bioethics is from the "clues" that the UNESCO Declaration for Bioethics and Human Rights gives us.
Article 2 - Objectives
The objectives of the present Declaration are:
... to provide a universal framework of principals and procedures that will serve as a guide to the States for the formulation of laws, policies and other instruments in the sphere of bioethics (...)
f)to promote an equal access to the advances in medicine, science, and technology as well as its most ample circulation possible and a rapid and shared use of the knowledge relative to these advances and their corresponding benefits, paying equal attention to the necessities of developing countries.[2]
In the Declaration, the fundamental principal of human dignity is not put to question or is it discussed. The reason for this lack of discussion is that the principle of Human Dignity is where the discussion stems from. None the less, it seems reasonable that it must be assumed from an operative perspective: that certain conditions (economic, social, health, etc) are required, so that a person can carry out activities which are properly human. In this aspect, Human Rights are always individual. But due to the social nature of man, by extension, and avoiding the risk of substantiating the term, the community to which he belongs, is also considered.
g) To safeguard and promote the interests of present and future generations[3]".
This is to say, there exists an unstable balance between individual/community. This balance comes to light a bit further on, when it is stated: "... The interest and wellbeing of a person should take precedence with respect to the exclusive interest of science or society".
The term "exclusive" gives this clue. Personal interests are not eliminated, but cannot exclude those of the community. With these elements we can offer a definition of "Social Responsibility" using the same Declaration which can be understood as:
(D1) "Those actions that provide the possibility to carry out and/or amplify those properly human acts of the person towards their present or future interest which have never been surrendered to the individual or the community".
This constitutes a challenge to the pluralistic society. In article 12 it is stated that cultural diversity cannot be used at convenience or arbitrarily to limit the application of Human Rights or their scope. Thus, do we not risk of falling into the mere formalization of good intentions?
D1 can be contrasted by other elements that are stated in the Declaration. The same states:
Article 14 -- Social responsibility and health
1. The promotion of health and social development for its people is an essential task of the governments that is shared by all the sectors in a society.
2. Keeping in mind that the fulfillment of the maximum grade of health which can be achieved is one of the fundamental rights of all human beings without distinction of race, religion, politics, ideology or social condition, the progress made in science and technology must promote:
a) The access to quality medical attention and to the essential medicine, especially for the health of woman and children, since health is essential to life itself and must be considered a social and human necessity.
b) Access to adequate food and water;
c) The improvement of life conditions and environment.
d) The suppression of marginalization and exclusion of persons for any cause.
e)The reduction of poverty and illiteracy. [4]
The proposed definition (D1) points out, in positive terms, what must be done, but the last two terms of the cited article place emphasis on the elimination of obstacles to Human Development. So that, with these elements, the definition can be improved:
(D2) "Actions which create the conditions for the possibledeployment and/or amplification of theproperly human acts,while eliminating also the obstacles with regard to their present or future interests which have never been surrendered to the individual or the community."
How can we decide between the situations that fall under the scope of Bioethics, in which community and personal interests inter-cross, but which seem to crash with the principle of human dignity (as in the case of religions)?
We may use the example of male circumcision within Judaism[5]. It is not a practice -- at least not so presented -- as a question of mere personal interest [6]. In fact, circumcision in minors who cannot by themselves decide, is considered a punishable act in some countries. [7] Circumcision is an example of a religious practice, which unites an individual with society. It is considered the parent´s responsibility with the community and in a certain way, at least historically speaking, of communitary identification.
Additionally to that pointed out in UNESCO, it is worth adding two ethical principles which are assumed with the concept of human dignity.Those are: the principle of proportionality[8]and that of subsidiarity[9].
The principle of proportionality makes reference to the fact that there may be actions that -- even while well intended and that have social benefits -- however result to be illicit. The principle of subsidiarity implies that one must not intervene more than it is necessary for the accomplishment of the ends of the community. Now then, does circumcision covers these requisites? That is to say, is the religious - affiliating act of circumcision a disproportioned act or not? On the other hand, to condemn this practice isn´t an attemp against certain autonomy of religion? Even if it is a practice with certain medical risks, isn´t it a religious function in which one must not intervene?
If this were the case, then here an individual would be sacrificed with respect to the community. I think that a way in which we can confront this, is by recognizing that in reality, even when there are acts that at least at first sight affect the individual (a mutilation), if the resulting good is the integration to the community without losingessential physical functions, then the individual is benefited[10].This is a type of symbioticaction[11]that positively affects a determined person and the community. Even when it can objected that in any case it is not a therapeutic action, but a preventive one, in most cases[12], in medicine based on evidence, it has been proven that in itself, circumcision is an adequatehygienic measure even when for Judaism it has a diverse meaning. In this sense, it is not comparable with a rejection of transfusions made by Jehovah’s witnesses.
Once presented the notion of social responsibility, it´s main aporia, and an example in Judaism, we may consider the following: What can be inferred from Judaism that will enrich the reviewed notion? What are its contributions to the notion of social responsibility?
- Judaism and social responsibility
In article 14 of the Declaration we read that c) The improvement of life conditions and environment. Is an action that demonstrates Social responsibility and health
In this sense Judaism has a principle of Social Responsibility that begun much before the Declaration was written, or the term Social Resposibility was began to be used: that is the principle of Tikun-holam which means help to improve the place in which one lives. It has as many other aspects, great differences between orthodox and secular Judaism. But without any doubt, it is admirable, that being a non proselitistic religion, Judaism cares about others and life and environment conditions. It is really admirable.
The present work does not pretend to analyze "all the Jewish sources". Here it is pertinent to remember that there is a written source of the Torah and an oral in nature (Talmud)[13].In the latter, an exegesis has been performed in order to make a better interpretationthat can condition the rule to the situation. The present day problems of Bioethics, abortion for example, do not have only ONE answer in Judaism[14]. Due to the aforementioned, it is also convenient to remember that in Judaism or Judaisms, to express it more adequately, there is no one central authority -- a Magistrate as is the case in Catholicism -- which leaves a greater margin for case by case interpretations which can result in very different conclusions between these. Considering the latter, the anecdote of Rabbi Byron Sherwin in his book Why be Good?, refers: [15]
It is told that one day the rabbi Rhyzen surprised some of his disciples playing checkers. Noting his presence, the studentswere ashamed of losing time in leisure instead of studying the sacred texts. However, he said: I´m happy that you play checkersbecause its rules are also the rules of spiritual and moral development. First: move pieces from square to square without skipping any of them. Second: always move forward, never go back. Third: once you reach one of the squares of the last row, the piece -- turned into a queen -- can go back, jump a number of squares, and move in any direction. [16]
This text illustrateswell the legalist character that Judaism tends to have, but on at the same time,seeking to avoid deontology.Rules by themselves do not guarantee acting in an adequate moral manner. The described metaphor also illustratesthat prudence, without the exercise of rules, would rather fall into consequentialism. Using this parable and its three rules, we can re-elaborate the concept of social responsibility to state that:
1)Social responsibility in Bioethics is accomplished step by step. It is not possible and would be naïve to think that there is a solution in a linear sense of a
problem. It is a complex solution[17] in a technical sense.[18]The complexity is because it implies the reading of reality as a system in which, at different levels, a balance between its components is achieved. Social responsibility then, implies seeing the whole and its parts simultaneously. In this way, the advantage of the checkers metaphor is that it reminds us that the rules of the system permitsa certain balance when we interact with the elements. In a similar manner, when we look for "social responsibility" we have to consider as a whole the human dimension (which we have called "dignity") and see how the particular elements (health, housing, education, etc. ) interact so that an emergent state is produced. In other words, it is not by adding all the factors that we arrive at the right answer for a community or an individual. The interaction of the elements in a determined situation will generate the correct balance, but not in another system. [19]
2)The “non-stop metaphor”. Human development and Judaism have in common that the interpretation of the Torah is continuous. There is no definitive reading that solves ethical problems so it is useless to stop at a certain point, of the specific answer for the given circumstances. The answer must be found in each case; BUT this does not necessarily imply that it is totally arbitrary. [20]
3)The third element can be denominated “prudence”. When the rules are understood, followed, and virtuousgoals are reached, the subject of action -- with improved habits – will arrive to a point of "step behind or advance". It can happen that, what seems an act of couragehappens to bein reality, an irresponsible action, and soone should take a step back. Or on the contrary, what at first instance seems prudent can merely bea coward action. Still this judgment belongs to the realm of traditional ethics[21]and would not be an "essentiallyJewish" characteristic.
So then, what elements of Judaism could result useful in giving us elements of judgment with regard to what we must do for the others? I think that the answer is "The Golden Rule". "You will not seek revenge nor maintain anger towards the sons of your people, instead you will love your neighbor (3) as you love yourself; I am the Lord”. (Lo-tikom velo-titor et-beney ameja ve'ahavta lere'aja kamoja ani Adonay)”[22]. And this Golden Rule (in fact, common to other religions) can be taken to a more concrete norm with the help of the Talmud (Babylonian)[23]:
Anyone who can prevent a sin, and does not, will be himself considered responsible, as he could have dissuaded the sinner…. What preceded is applied if one esteems that there exists a possibility of success, but if one knows that the sinner will not pay absolutely any heed to his observations, then he must not intercede, since, in the same manner in which it is his duty to intervene when he will be listened to, it is recommended that he abstain from this in the opposite case. [24]
From this we can conclude that one of the fundamental teachings is co- responsibility. So as we have outlined the formal principal of proportionality: one must not attempt good acts that result in disproportionate negative effects. Of course, it is a matter of debate, what is considered good. But in any case, the social responsibility, as is suggested by the Talmud, is to provide correction in the most opportune moment. Another text complements the latter while being a negative expression of the principle, or let´s calls it a limited Golden Rule:
It is forbidden to humiliate your neighbor, both with words or with actions, and even more so, in public. So our Wise Men said. "He who shames his neighbor in public will have no part in the future world” (Pirké Avot4). From the latter, one must take great care in not humiliating in public any person, child or adult, or calling him by a nickname which can embarrass him or by telling in his presence any story that may disturb him. [25]
So the advice here, is not to intervene in order to harm. Not to act in order to damage. Both interpretations of the Talmudic text remit us once again to the indicated formal principle. We can recall that both formulations are, essentially, the philosophical principle of "Do good and avoid evil". [26]
- Final note
The declarations on human rights must be seen as an acknowledgement of the dependency of all persons on one another to achieve the common good. We require common rules that favor the minimum correct beliefs that promote the development or flourishing of humanity. The Declaration ofHuman Rights and Bioethicsis a deepening and an acknowledgement of the limits of human development, as a collective effort with a common axiological background in which the ends are more than the expression of the wishes. Man can thus visualize,not only the motives for action which are infinite, but also the reasons of the action. Such is the sense of being an“independent ethical reasoner". But here "independent" does not imply the mere subjectivity or isolation.
Jewish religious practices have on one hand an aspect that promotes the acknowledgment of the Other and recognizes that not only the individual is the support, but also that an individual without a community life cannot totally perform his own humanity. Anyway the question about practical paradoxesin theapplication of the Jewish Law is an important matter that I should study in the future.
I think that the words of the Jewish thinker, Ana Arendt, explains the notion of social responsibility, in fact, as a way of practicing politics in the most classical sense of the word: the life of the community.
The need of understanding what has happened as an act of responsibility by which we comply with our human obligation of taking care of the world. On one hand, breaking with the tradition. And on the other, the ineludible political responsibility by the sole act of being part of humanity. [27]
.
References:
1) AAVV. “Circuncisión. Quick Reference”. Master Catalog of practical clinic guides: SSA-289-10, Consejo de Salubridad General, México,
2)Aristóteles, Ética a Nicómaco. Espasa Calpe Madrid, 1871.
3)Bamigboye AA, Igberase GO. "Circuncisión masculina para la prevención de la adquisición del VIH en hombres heterosexuales: Commented byBSR (last revision: January 1, 2010). Reproductive Health Library OMS; Geneva: World Health Organization. In:
(consulted on August 12, 2014).
4)(Bosca, Roberto. “Caritas y tzedaká. “Caritas y tzedaká. las fuentes veterotestamentarias de la doctrina social de la iglesia en el marco del diálogo hebraico-católico”. Scripta Theologica, Vol. XL/1 Universidad de Navarra, 2008 p.
5)Caro, Yosef. Shul´han Aruj (compilation), Hasdé Lea foundation, editorial Jerusalem de México, México, 2003.
6)Cortina, Adela. Ética Mínima, Tecnos, Madrid, 2000.
7)De Aquino, Tomás de. Suma de Teología Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid, 2001.
8)Universal Declaration on Human Rights an Bioethics UNESCO, 2005, in: [Consulted el Agust 2, 2014]
9)(García Rolando. Sistemas complejos. Gedisa editorial, Bracelona, 2006.
10)Gómez Álvarez, José Enrique. Derechos Humanos, bioética y religión: recuperación del florecimiento humano. Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Estado de México, México, 2006.
11)Neusner, Jacob.The Golden Rule in Clasical Judaism. Bard College, 2008.
12)Novo, M. Rita, “El concepto de, “Responsabilidad” en la filosofía política de Hannah Arendt”.
Hannah Arendt”. Actas de las VII Jornadas de Investigación en Filosofía, Departamento de Filosofía, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación Universidad Nacional de La Plata 2008.