I've been exposing, through the lens of secularizing Jewish ethics, that the opposite is the case - Jewish ethics is far more moral, flexible, dynamic and relevant to the real world than any of the purely secular systems out there.
One of the tradition’s greatest features, however, is all but invisible to its critics: the concept of compromise. In Judaism, compromise is not a concession or weakness - it is a mitzvah, a central value, and a creative force.
There are thousands of volumes of Jewish legal codes, commentaries on the codes, and published legal rulings of the great rabbis over the centuries that refine and update the logic of halacha to accommodate new cases. But there is another aspect to what Jewish legal advisors - poskim - do, that are rarely written down.
Maimonides writes in Laws of the Sanhedrin, 22:4:
At the outset, it is a mitzvah to ask the litigants: "Do you desire a judgment or a compromise?" If they desire a compromise, a compromise is negotiated. Any court that continuously negotiates a compromise is praiseworthy. Concerning this approach, Zechariah 8:16 states: "Adjudicate a judgment of peace in your gates." Which judgment involves peace [they are normally contradictory concepts]? A compromise. Similarly, with regard to King David it is stated: "And David carried out justice and charity for his entire people." When does justice involve charity? When a compromise is made.
This is halacha - that judges, and rabbis, should seek compromise first before a final ruling. Compromises are meant to make the litigants feel that they are not losing, to avoid hard feelings, to increase the feeling of community and respect. It isn't like arbitration where the decision is imposed - if either side isn't happy with the compromise they can insist on full judgment.
These compromises aren’t codified, because they are tailored to the unique and specific circumstances of real people. They don't set legal precedent. They are customized to the individuals in their own times. Their power is found in the relationships they heal, not in the exacting logic of the decision.
An entire area of halacha - one that is considered praiseworthy and, according to many, superior to formal judgment itself - is all but unknown to the world, because it is human-centered, situational, and resistant to abstraction.
It is the spirit of compromise that makes Jewish ethics so powerful. Compromise is not a concession but a value. It is not a watering down of the law - it is the law.
To be sure, compromise had another practical benefit: the Jewish courts and rabbis during the Diaspora generally had no enforcement mechanisms, and a compromise was more likely to be followed by the litigants. If one side felt that they were being treated unfairly there was a risk that they would ignore the ruling and the result would be that a high legal bar could drive people away from the community itself.
Ethical systems also lack an enforcement mechanism. So why do so few consider the lived humanity of those being judged?
When parties are judged, who they are and their personal situations are not relevant. The rich and poor, powerful and weak, all get a chance to be judged equally.
When parties look for compromises, however, the rich side can decide to have mercy on the poorer side. Poskim can take into account how the compromise would affect the lives of each of the sides, or find creative compromises can give each side something that the other side has in abundance. Both parties can come out as winners, but only when the rabbi or judge works at finding win/win solutions that are far from strict judgment.
Secular ethics systems do not have the same positive attitude towards compromise.
Kantian ethics is famously uncompromising: principles must never be sacrificed, and compromise is a moral failing, not a virtue.
Utilitarianism accepts compromise only as a means to maximize abstract “good”—the feelings or dignity of the parties are irrelevant.
Rawlsian contractualism allows compromise to minimize unfairness, but not as a positive, creative value.
On the other hand, Jewish law says compromise is a mitzvah. That, in itself, sets Jewish ethics apart: it is a system where people are treated as real human beings, not as abstract, interchangeable objects. Human dignity is not just a value in Jewish ethics but also a value in the adjudication of Jewish ethics. The opposing parties themselves choose compromise or judgment, making them active participants in the process.
Far from being overly legalistic, Jewish ethics is the most human-centered moral system on the map.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy