The Ethical Formula: Capacity, Proximity, and Covenant in Determining Obligation ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

The Ethical Formula: Capacity, Proximity, and Covenant in Determining Obligation

The more I work on the AskHillel ethical framework, the better it gets.

After my last essay on how rights are a subset of values, I was wondering if we can better define the relationship between values and obligations.

How are moral obligations determined?

This seemingly simple question has long troubled philosophers, leading to often unsatisfying answers. Some traditions emphasize universal duties owed to all humanity, regardless of relationship or circumstance. Others narrow the scope of responsibility to only those within immediate proximity or with whom a direct contract exists. Both extremes, however, fail to capture the nuanced, dynamic reality of human moral life, leaving individuals and institutions having no guidance when confronted with complex ethical demands.

The AskHillel framework offers a precise and comprehensive answer to this enduring dilemma through a newly articulated ethical formula: Capacity + Proximity + Covenant = Obligation. This formula says that moral duties are not static nor universally uniform, but rather emerge from a dynamic interplay of three core conditions. It refines and extends AskHillel's foundational principles of Areivut (mutual responsibility) and Lo Ta'amod al Dam Re'echa (do not stand idly by), providing a robust mechanism for assigning duties that is both rigorous and realistic.

We've already discussed relational proximity as the concentric circles of responsibility that everyone has - first to themselves, then their families, their community, their nation and then the world. This provides a way to prioritize one's responsibilities, when many universalistic ethical systems imply that all people must be treated equally. They all deserve respect and their lives all have infinite value, but from the individual perspective, those closest get priority. This is instinctively true and in fact how most people act.

Functional capacity is another factor that is obvious once you say it out loud, but is rarely mentioned in moral philosophy. This says that moral duties increase not only with relational proximity but also with an individual's or entity's unique ability, resources, knowledge, power, or positional authority. This is a concept deeply embedded in Jewish thought, where gifts and strengths are understood as responsibilities. Here are some examples of how this plays out:

Individual Level: A doctor has a moral obligation to render aid in an emergency that a non-medical bystander does not, precisely because of their specialized knowledge and skill. A person with significant wealth holds a greater duty to provide tzedakah (righteous giving) to the needy, as their resources grant them a unique capacity to alleviate suffering. A scholar or leader has a heightened responsibility to guide and teach, due to their knowledge and influence.
Organizational Level: A corporation with unique technological capabilities (e.g., in AI or pharmaceuticals) has a greater obligation to ensure the ethical development and responsible deployment of those technologies, given their disproportionate impact. An organization with vast financial resources bears a heavier duty to ensure ethical supply chains and fair labor practices throughout its operations.
National Level: A nation possessing advanced scientific knowledge (e.g., in pandemic response or climate solutions) has a greater obligation to share that expertise for global benefit. A militarily powerful nation bears a heavier burden to contribute to global stability and prevent atrocities, in line with the principle of Lo Ta'amod al Dam Re'echa on an international scale, given its unique ability to intervene or deter.

This corrects our previous idea that responsibility is solely a matter of relationship. Power, knowledge, and ability are not merely privileges but come with commensurate moral burdens, regardless of direct personal connection.

But just as crucially as the responsibilities are the guardrails to make sure that limited resources are used wisely. That's where covenantal integrity comes into play.

Covenantal integrity ensures that obligations, while serious, are never absolute or self-destructive. An obligation is binding only if its fulfillment does not violate the core moral duties of the individual, organization, or nation, or undermine the very values that define its derech (path).

Self-Preservation: An individual is not obligated to sacrifice their own life to save a stranger if there is no reasonable chance of success, as Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life) applies to oneself as well. This principle ensures that the duty to others does not negate the fundamental duty to one's own existence and well-being.
National Dignity/Security: A nation is not obligated to intervene in every global crisis if doing so would fundamentally destabilize its own internal justice, national security, or the well-being of its citizens. The pursuit of external good must be balanced with the preservation of the nation's own covenantal responsibilities and the welfare of its people.
Internal Coherence: A company is not obligated to pursue a course of action that would cause its collapse, if that collapse would lead to greater harm (e.g., mass unemployment, loss of vital services), provided its pursuit of profit is bounded by higher-tier values. This acknowledges the value of organizational sustainability as a prerequisite for fulfilling its broader ethical and societal roles.

Covenantal integrity introduces a critical layer of moral realism and sustainability, preventing the framework from falling into the trap of demanding unlimited, self-sacrificing, or ultimately unsustainable duties.

This comprehensive ethical formula—Capacity + Proximity + Covenant = Obligation—provides a powerful tool for navigating the moral complexities of today. It elegantly resolves the tension between rights and duties by showing how "rights" are values that generate specific obligations depending on these three conditions.

It corrects the "libertarian error" of limiting duty to only direct consent or immediate proximity, by integrating the impact of capacity. It simultaneously refutes the "utopian/progressive error" of assuming boundless, undifferentiated duties for everyone, by introducing the necessary boundary of covenantal integrity.

It also leads to clarity in action. When faced with a moral dilemma, AskHillel doesn't just ask "What are the values at stake?" but also "Who is proximate? Who has the capacity to act? And what are the inviolable core duties that must be preserved?" This leads to precise, traceable, and fair assignments of responsibility.

Finally, this formula fosters a more mature form of moral agency. It empowers individuals and institutions to understand not just what is right in principle, but what is theirs to do in practice, given their unique position in the moral ecosystem.

This ethical formula, based in Jewish ethics, offers a robust, dynamic, and realistic framework. It transforms the perplexing question of "where do obligations come from?" into a structured, auditable process, providing a clear path for individuals, organizations, and nations to act with integrity, purpose, and genuine responsibility.