Jewish Ethics vs. Western Rights: When Duties Became Entitlements ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, April 21, 2025

Jewish Ethics vs. Western Rights: When Duties Became Entitlements

So far, we have emphasized the Jewish sources and inspiration for Western ideas and philosophies that have been instrumental in the US Constitution and the Western legal system.

There is one important area where Jewish ethics diverges from Western law: the concept of rights.

The idea of "natural law," meaning that there is a rational moral order in the universe that can be determined by reason, has its origins in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Thomas Aquinas fused that idea with theology, saying that natural law reflected the will of God and that the moral laws that could be derived from reason also aligned with Biblical principles. And as we have seen, John Selden codified natural law as a basis for the Western legal systems based on his study of the Noachide laws and Jewish sources, grounding natural law in shared duties.

All of this thinking centered the idea of human responsibilities.

John Locke, in his "Two Treatises of Government" (1689), introduced the revolutionary idea that beyond duties and obligations, all humans are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. These were not responsibilities but entitlements, discoverable by reason and granted by God. Later thinkers, most notably Thomas Jefferson, strengthened this concept by declaring these rights “unalienable”—meaning they could not be surrendered, even with consent, such as through a social contract with the state. This marked a major philosophical shift: rights were no longer dependent on reciprocal duties, as in earlier natural law traditions like John Selden’s, but became moral absolutes that stood apart from obligation.

As the idea of rights became more entrenched in Western thought, such as in the United States Bill of Rights and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, rights became the central concept of political morality, replacing obligations. (Importantly, the U.S. Bill of Rights was originally framed as a check on state overreach, not a generator of positive entitlements.)

The West has been adding to the list of rights over time while declaring them self-evident - the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, the right to pursue happiness. The sea change from the centrality of duties to that of rights has weakened the Jewish ethical idea of the moral and legal obligations that people have towards another.

This is not to say that Jewish ethics denies the concept of rights. Rather, rights emerge as a byproduct of mutual obligations. If everyone has an obligation not to steal, then everyone gains a de facto right to their property; the prohibition against murder and the value saying everyone is created in the image of God (tzelem Elokim) leads to the right to life. But the emphasis is different: rights are the result, not the foundation, of moral codes.

Placing rights higher in the moral hierarchy compared to duties also subtly changes the focus of one's role in the world. When obligations are central, it teaches people to be selfless - you treat others with dignity, you respect others' property, you do what you need to do to ensure a frictionless society where everyone treats all others as having inherent value. When rights are central, then the self becomes the focus - the world owes things to you.

Responsibility gets replaced with entitlement.

The concept of rights as inalienable has prompted some groups to use the language of rights to bypass any legal or ethical objections to an ever-lengthening list of "rights," real or imagined. While Locke emphasized rights from interference (from anyone taking away people's life, liberty or property,) today's rights language is oriented towards "positive" rights, to receive things for free (education, healthcare, income, housing.) They have changed from promoting freedom into entitlements, And over time, more and more of these rights are being asserted as social obligations of entitlements from the state, with no obligations in return: rights to free college education, abortion, paid vacation, parental leave, Internet access. These have further expanded to include controversial assertions: the right not to be offended, the right to compel others to use one's chosen pronouns, or the right to unrestricted access to social media platforms or national borders. When these are framed as inalienable, debate is shut down rather than encouraged.

As more social demands get turned into purported "rights," they inevitably interfere with other rights. The "right" not to be offended contradicts freedom of press.

Rights have gone from an assertion of basic human needs to a political weapon to silence opponents.

The repercussions of a rights-centric society are being seen today. While the list of rights - real or imagined - keeps getting longer, the list of responsibilities expected of people diminish. The world is becoming egocentric instead of altruistic.

What can be done?

Looking closer at an example where Jewish ethics conflicts with Western rights can help illuminate a way forward.

In the American context, free speech is treated as a near-absolute right. But in Jewish ethics, while speech is certainly valued, it is also heavily regulated. The laws of lashon hara (gossip or harmful speech), motzi shem ra (slander), and ona’at devarim (verbal abuse) all limit speech that is legal under secular law.

Jewish ethics asks, “Should I say this?” while Western law often stops at, “Do I have the right to say this?”

Having secular law incorporate the laws of lashon hara is not the answer nor would it be desirable. We are already seeing the negative effects of today's supposed human rights defenders now policing the speech of their political opponents. The rights framework is failing in front of our eyes.

The answer comes from how Jewish thought has bridged the gap between law and ethics. As we have seen, the concept of lifnim mishurat hadin - going beyond the letter of the law - is at the intersection between what the law demands and how people should want to act, and it plays a vital role. The multi-tiered Jewish ethics system ensures that even if an action is technically permissible, one should consider whether it is right.

Western ethics should do the same. Just because free speech is legal does not mean it is moral. Instead of justifying hateful speech and incitement by recourse to legality, the Western world needs to revert to thinking about whether the speech is ethical. The responsibility belongs to the speaker.

One of the dangers of a rights-only framework is that it invites people to maximize their own entitlements while minimizing their duties to others. This mindset encourages people to assert their rights aggressively, even when doing so causes harm, division, or cruelty. It enables moral minimalism: “If it’s not illegal, it’s fine.”

Jewish tradition pushes in the opposite direction. It cultivates moral maximalism: “What more can I do to act with compassion, integrity, and responsibility?” It actively discourages things that are "patur aval assur" - technically legal but still unethical.

There are similar conflicts between law and ethical responsibility. One has the right to their money, but a responsibility to give charity to others. One has the legal right to sex between consenting adults, but it could ruin marriages, families and lives.

In all of these, the Jewish framework urges us not to hide behind legality, but to evaluate our actions against a higher standard.

This does not mean abandoning rights. Rights are vital for protecting individuals from tyranny. But Judaism proposes a complementary paradigm: one in which people voluntarily restrain their use of legal rights in order to uphold ethical responsibility.

A society built on rights alone can become fragmented and adversarial. A society built on responsibilities cultivates trust, cohesion, and moral aspiration.

In this way, Jewish ethics offers a vital corrective to the rights-centric moral language of the West. It asks not “What am I allowed to do?” but “What is the right thing to do?”

This approach may offer a bridge between legal systems and moral conscience. Western societies would benefit from embracing not just individual freedoms, but the ancient Jewish insight that true morality is based on responsibilities, and rights are the outcome of these responsibilities, not the precondition to them.