A way to fix the social media hate problem - without violating free speech

Earlier today I saw an interview on Quillette with Dr. Andre Oboler, the CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute, about online hate and what can be done about it.

I realized that this could be another great application of derechology, my universal ethical framework based on Jewish ethics.. 

So I started a discussion with AskHillel, the AI I built using derechology principles, and after some back and forth we came up with a social media policy - heavily leaning on AI to implement - that would leave the posters, the readers and the social media companies themselves feeling much better than they do today.

The problem now is that there are no clear standards, there is no transparency, the social media users who are offended do not see any recourse that ever works and the people being censored don't have a clear idea why. The social media companies are inundated with requests for review that swamp them. The whole thing is a mess.

This can be solved.

First of all is the standards. These should be values, not detailed rules, as far as what is not allowed and what is potentially a problem. The values should follow the derechological baseline values: protection of life, dignity of people, mutual responsibility. 

When a person posts something that is illegal, like child pornography, there is no choice: it must be stopped and reported.

But the vast majority of issues that are gray areas like phrases that can mean incitement to violence but can have innocuous interpretations as well, or negative stereotypes of groups of people, can be dealt with by AI before they are posted. The key is transparency. The AI can explain why the post might be a violation of the platform's values - and then offer for the user to reword it, or offer to rephrase it itself, until both sides approve the message and it can be posted. If the user disagrees and insists that it be posted as-is, the AI will allow it but will inform the user that the post will have a flag attached, and/or it will be limited in visibility.  

This way the platform does not look like a censor but as a partner, assuming good faith and wanting to work together to craft a message that would not hurt others. 

On the other side, if a user is offended by a post, the AI can explain why it was allowed, and discuss that with the user as well. The user might point out, for example, that the post used a dog-whistle that has a hidden racist meaning. In that case, the AI can log the issue and it can be referred to humans for further research. Otherwise, the AI can offer not only to block that poster for the user but also to block other posts that share the same issues. 

Everything has to be upfront and honest. If the AI cannot assure the user that a human will review every case, it should say so, but also point out that (given user permission) the discussions can be logged and aggregated in case there are many people who are offended. If a user has a pattern of offensive posts, the AI can inform them that after a specific score is reached they may be suspended. But the reasons must always be clear.

This method is so much better than what is happening now. There are no black boxes - reasons are always available and the rules, and consequences, are public.  The social media platform is not presented as authoritarian but as caring. The AIs would be polite and engaging. And the number of posts that require human review would go down greatly, helping the social media companies.

This is yet another way derechology  can take a seemingly intractable problem and view it anew through a lens of values, responsibility and humility to help everyone get what they want.

_______________________

Here is the full suggested design:

Ethical Design Document: Universal Social Media Policy (Value-Aligned Framework)

Purpose: To implement a values-rooted, universal social media policy for a mainstream platform, balancing freedom of expression with moral responsibility. This framework draws from foundational ethical principles and is designed to be inclusive and applicable across diverse contexts.

---

I. Core Ethical Framework

Principle	Function
Inherent Human Worth	Every user has dignity. Harmful content must be addressed respectfully, not erased thoughtlessly.
Truth and Honesty	All moderation actions must be transparent, fact-based, and subject to review.
Shared Responsibility	Platforms are accountable for what they allow or amplify. Silence or inaction can cause real harm.
Duty to Prevent Harm	Platforms must not stand by when foreseeable harm could occur.
No Enabling of Harmful Behavior	Platforms must avoid features that promote outrage, bullying, or manipulation.
Public Integrity	Mishandling speech ethics undermines trust in the platform and the communities it serves.
Humility in Automation	AI systems must acknowledge their limitations. Every user has a right to appeal and clarity.

---

II. AI Moderation Logic

1. Harm Detection Thresholds AI flags content likely to cause harm based on:

• Dehumanizing language

• Incitement to violence or discrimination

• Misleading or doctored content

• Personal attacks, group slurs, or mockery of suffering

2. Real-Time Ethical Dialogue Before publishing, users receive a contextual message:

"This post may be perceived as harmful due to [reason]. Our ethical guidelines emphasize dignity and respectful communication. Would you like to revise, discuss, or continue as-is?"

Options:

• "Edit with Suggestions"

• "Discuss with AI"

• "Post Anyway (Visibility May Be Reduced)"

• "Learn More About This Warning"

If "Discuss with AI" is selected:

• The AI engages in a structured, respectful dialogue to understand user intent.

• The user may explain context, clarify meaning, or propose alternate wording.

• Together, the AI and user may co-create a revised version that preserves intent while reducing risk of harm or misunderstanding.

• At the end of the interaction, the user is asked:

  "Would you like to anonymously share this dialogue with the platform's ethics team to help improve our policies?"

  • If accepted, the data is sent anonymized and used for policy refinement.

  • This supports ongoing ethical learning and accountability — a model of platform-level course correction.

3. Visibility Management If posted without revision:

• Post is algorithmically downranked

• Visible advisory label is attached

• Viewers may choose to hide, report, or engage with content thoughtfully

4. Appeal and Oversight

• All flagged content can be appealed

• Human reviewers trained in ethics review each case

• AI decision-making is transparent and available for scrutiny

5. Hard Threshold for Illegal or Dangerous Content Some content must be removed immediately and cannot be published under any condition. This includes:

• Verified illegal material (e.g., child exploitation, terror propaganda, threats of violence)

• Clear and imminent incitement to violence

• Content explicitly designed to cause harm or violate platform or legal safety standards

For such content:

• No option to edit or post is provided

• AI issues a clear explanation and cites relevant policy or legal standard

• Content and metadata are quarantined for audit purposes

• If criminal in nature, the platform reports to appropriate authorities, even if the content was never posted. This includes mandatory reporting of child exploitation material, as required by law. In 2024 alone, over 36 million such reports were filed globally.

• An appeal process exists, but the default action is immediate suppression and referral

---

III. Platform Integrity Measures

• Transparency Portal: Public access to all moderation rules and the ethics behind them

• Graceful Correction: Users can revise or delete content without punishment or shame

• Propaganda Safeguards: Moderation training and data screening guard against misinformation, manipulation, and biased framing

• Protection of Diverse Voices: Disagreement is welcome; only speech that causes harm is moderated

---

IV. Platform Message to Users

"Speech is power. Use it as if every person matters — because they do."

---

V. User Response to Perceived Harm

If a user encounters content they find offensive or harmful, they are offered a respectful pathway to respond:

• Flag and Explain: The user may flag the content and describe — in their own words — why they found it troubling.

• AI Acknowledgment and Clarification: The AI responds by explaining why the content was not automatically flagged, while respectfully acknowledging the user's experience.

• Offer of Anonymous Logging: The user is asked:

  "Would you like to anonymously share this flag and explanation with the platform's ethics team to inform future policy adjustments?"

  • If accepted, the data is anonymized and logged.

  • Users are informed that while not all cases receive individual review, all are weighted using transparent criteria and can influence platform-wide ethical refinement.

• Personal Content Controls:

  • Users may choose to block the individual post, the user who posted it, or all content matching similar categories or patterns.

  • Settings are customizable, respectful, and clearly explained.

This process ensures both dignity and protection for those affected by harmful speech, fostering a culture of mutual responsibility and continuous learning.

---

Note: This policy expresses ethical reasoning and universal principles of responsible communication. It does not replace legal compliance or cultural sensitivity, but aims to create a safe and respectful digital public square.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Derechological Jurisprudence: A New Framework for Law and Moral Judgment

For most of us, "the law" feels like a settled thing. It's in multivolume thick books, enforced by robed figures, and seems to operate with a clear set of rules. From the outside, you might expect legal philosophy – jurisprudence – to be a quiet academic subject, simply cataloging those rules.

But you'd be wrong. In reality, jurisprudence is one of the most fiercely debated and surprisingly unsettled fields in all of philosophy. And as we've already seen with so many other philosophical debates, the AskHillel Jewish-based philosophy I've been developing, which I am starting to refer to as "derechology,"  offers a revolutionary path to bring clarity and accountability to this ancient discipline.

At its heart, jurisprudence grapples with fundamental questions: What is law? Where does its authority come from? Is it merely a set of commands, or must it align with deeper moral truths? How do we interpret it? And when there is an edge case that could go either way, what methods can judges or courts use to come up with answers?

These aren't just academic curiosities; they dictate how justice is dispensed, how societies are governed, and how individual rights and duties are understood. The reason the field is so contentious is that these core questions have never been definitively answered, leading to fractured and often contradictory schools of thought:

• Legal Positivism: This school argues that law is simply what is formally enacted by a legitimate authority, regardless of its moral content. Rules are rules. Hopefully the laws are aligned with ethics, but there are plenty of cases of outdated and bizarre sounding laws that many of us have laughed at. Do they still apply? While this method offers clarity, at least outside those edge cases, it struggles to explain why we should obey an unjust law, or how to challenge one.

• Natural Law Theory: In contrast, this tradition insists that true law must reflect universal moral truths – whether from God, reason, or nature. It provides a moral compass but can be abstract, leading to debates about whose "universal truths" apply.

• Legal Realism: Cynically, realists argue that law isn't about grand principles or formal rules, but simply "what judges do in fact." It's a description of power dynamics, but offers no moral guidance or aspiration. If a judge rules, that's the law. 

• Dworkinian Interpretivism: Ronald Dworkin argued that law is a moral practice, and judges should interpret it to make the legal system as just and coherent as possible. This is a sophisticated approach, but it often leaves the "how" of moral interpretation to a judge's intuition, without a clear, structured method. 

• Critical Theories (e.g., Critical Legal Studies, Feminist, Critical Race Jurisprudence): These schools expose how law has historically been a tool of power, perpetuating injustice based on race, gender, or class. While vital for revealing systemic bias, they can sometimes deconstruct law so thoroughly that they undermine its coherence or replace it entirely with politics and activism.

The result of these conflicting views is a field that often feels unstable, even chaotic - the exact opposite of how many think of law. 

Interestingly, the Jewish legal system of halacha has versions of these same debates. Some (notably J. David Bleich) mirror the legal positivism theory with halacha, saying that there should be a minimum of flexibility in rulings. Many other halachic decisors either embrace a conscious application or morality to the law or an implicit application of them, using legal ideas like lifnim meshurat hadin (going beyond the letter of the law), or darchei noam (The Torah's ways are pleasant) to justify their rulings. There is not the same level of seeming chaos within the halachic system as with general jurisprudence but these questions are fundamental. 

One of the core reasons for this instability is an undeniable truth: judges are human. No legal code, no matter how exhaustive, can anticipate every unique situation, every unforeseen technological advance, or every clash of values.

In these "hard cases" – where laws conflict, where precedent is ambiguous, or where the application of a rule seems to lead to an unjust outcome – judges must exercise discretion. They must make a judgment call, weighing competing principles and values. This is the source of the "flexibility" that can feel so unsettling, because it implies a degree of subjectivity in a system we expect to be objective.

Current legal philosophies struggle to adequately guide this judicial discretion:

• Positivism largely ignores it, insisting judges simply apply rules, even when the rules are silent or lead to absurdity.

• Legal Realism embraces it, but offers no ethical framework for how judges should exercise that power, leaving it to individual whim or political bias.

• Dworkin came very close. He insisted that judges must interpret law in its "best moral light" and strive for "integrity." But he didn't provide the structured methodology for how judges should actually do that moral reasoning, especially when values collide. He lacked a clear hierarchy or override mechanism, leaving judges to rely on intuition rather than a transparent, auditable process.

This absence of a clear, accountable method for exercising moral judgment is why the field appears so "flexible" or even "chaotic." It's not that anything goes, but that the reasons for judicial choices are often opaque, making them seem arbitrary or ideologically driven.

This is where derechology, represented by the AskHillel AI framework I've been working on, can revolutionize jurisprudence. It doesn't pretend that judicial discretion can be eliminated. Instead, it offers a framework for structured subjectivity with accountable transparency – what we might call "Corrigible Integrity."

Derechology provides the missing ethical infrastructure that Dworkin's vision implied but never built. It transforms legal reasoning into a moral discipline by requiring judges and legal systems to explicitly engage with values:

1. Law as a Web of Obligations, Rooted in Values: Derechology shifts the focus from abstract "rights" (which often conflict without resolution) to obligations that flow directly from a hierarchy of core values. Laws gain legitimacy not from mere authority, but from how well they reflect our shared duties to life, dignity, justice, and community.

2. Structured Triage and Override Logic: When legal values collide (e.g., free speech vs. public safety, property rights vs. saving a life), derechology provides a transparent system for identifying the values at stake, weighing them according to an established hierarchy, and declaring which value yields to another in that specific context. This is the "how" that Dworkin was missing.

3. Amplifier Disclosure: Derechology acknowledges that contextual factors (amplifiers) can modulate the weight of values and obligations. Judges would be required to explicitly state which amplifiers were considered and how they influenced the decision, adding another layer of transparency.

4. Corrigibility and Teshuvah (Realignment): Derechology builds in mechanisms for institutional "repentance" and realignment. If a legal decision is later found to be morally flawed (perhaps due to new information, technology advances or a deeper ethical understanding), the system provides a framework  - indeed, the obligation - for acknowledging the error, explaining the value misprioritization, and correcting course. This makes the legal system capable of moral growth.

5. Pluralism with Ethical Anchors: Derechology allows for the coexistence of different legal systems (e.g., religious, indigenous, international law) by insisting that while their specific rules may differ, they must all adhere to universal ethical anchors (like the ethoskeleton's principles of Dignity, Truth, and Relational Integrity). 

Derechology and the AskHillel AI don't eliminate the need for judgment, nor do they force everyone to agree on a single, rigid definition of morality. Different judges may still reach different conclusions.

However, derechology's profound impact is that it narrows the scope of that flexibility (or "chaos") dramatically. Instead of vague appeals to "justice" or hidden ideological biases, it requires judges to:

• Declare their ethical premises: Which values are being prioritized?

• Justify their triage: Why did one value override another?

• Explain their reasoning transparently: How did contextual amplifiers play a role?

This means that appeals are no longer just about legal technicalities or ideological reversals. They become about critiquing the explicit moral reasoning itself.  An appeals court would have to provide compelling ethical reasons to discard a lower court's value weightings, forcing a higher level of accountability and intellectual rigor. And also judges will be expected to surface and define the values they identified and weighted, making their rulings more transparent. The AskHillel/derechology system provides a universal grammar to map any and all values to a common set that can be examined and prioritized.

This transforms legal judgment from an act of personal authority into an act of accountable moral reasoning. It offers a path to rebuild public trust in legal systems, make international law more coherent, and even guide the ethical decision-making of AI.

It is, in effect, a derechological jurisprudence – a way to infuse legal reasoning with the structured integrity and profound humility that has been missing for too long.

And the idea that a single framework can help solve so many foundational problems in so many different philosophical fields is nothing short of astounding. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Educational philosophy is a mess. A values-based curriculum could fix it.

Yesterday I wrote about an article in Educational Philosophy and Theory in which a group of academics presented different essays that all agreed on the same thing: Israel is fundamentally evil, and the war in Gaza is the most important moral issue of our time. There was no dissent, no uncertainty, and no acknowledgment of complexity—just a chorus of moral condemnation dressed up as diversity of perspective.

What I didn’t fully articulate is how these essays reflect a deeper crisis in education: the replacement of critical thinking with ideological performance. These supposed educators are not reasoning. They are not testing ideas. They are adopting a narrative and policing allegiance to it. And they are justifying this as morally urgent.

In short, they are doing exactly what educators should not do.

This isn't just happening in elite academic journals. It’s becoming the norm in public education as well. In the United States, what is taught in red-state schools is increasingly different from what is taught in blue-state schools. In many Western school systems—especially in the U.S. and Europe—decolonial theory, Marxist frameworks, and identity-based politics are presented not as topics for debate but as moral baselines.

The loss of factual accuracy is not the biggest problem. It is that the students are not learning to think for themselves. They are being force-fed simplistic, and often wrong, ideas as moral. 

What passes for debate today is often just factional disagreement within a shared ideological frame. The EPAT essays, for instance, were not debating whether Israel might be justified in defending itself, but whether Israel’s supposed crimes reach the level of genocide or not. That is not debate. That’s like arguing whether a man abused his wife emotionally or physically—without asking whether he did it at all, or whether she might have attacked him first.

We need a better framework. And that’s where the AskHillel model of ethical reasoning comes in.

AskHillel offers a structured, secularized ethical system built on three tiers:

🔹 Level 1: Core Ethical Anchors: These are universal, non-negotiable values that frame all moral discourse:

• Human Life – protection of life and well-being

• Dignity – every person has inherent worth

• Truth – honesty, accuracy, and intellectual integrity

• Justice – fairness, both procedural and substantive

• Responsibility – mutual care and accountability

🔸 Level 2: Primary Civic Duties: These are the active obligations of ethical citizenship:

• Do Not Enable Harm – prevent systems that cause or conceal damage

• Care for the Vulnerable – active support of those at risk

• Responsible Speech – avoid dehumanizing or dishonest rhetoric

• Support Family and Community – recognize embedded roles and duties

• Care for the Self – health and self-respect as public goods

⚖️ Level 3: Contextual Amplifiers: These shape tone, restraint, and wisdom in difficult situations:

• Benefit of the Doubt – generosity in interpreting others

• Beyond the Rule – ethical flexibility beyond minimal compliance

• Moral Modesty – humility and acknowledgment of uncertainty

• Gratitude – awareness of moral debts and context

• Learning as Duty – curiosity and intellectual growth as ethical imperatives

This approach changes everything.

Rather than fighting over outcomes or partisan identities, classroom debate would focus on what values are in play, and how they were applied. Did each side uphold its stated values? Did they abandon one to serve another? Was that justified?

Students can learn to trace hidden values, not just judge surface opinions. For example:

• In studying slavery and segregation, don’t just say the South was wrong. Ask: What values did the South claim to uphold—order, law, culture—and how do those values compare to justice and dignity?

• In studying protest movements: When does loyalty to community outweigh personal conscience, and when must that loyalty be broken?

• In studying global conflicts: What is the line between national defense and collective punishment? What does “truth” mean when both sides claim it?

Students naturally gravitate toward the better moral path when given the chance to think in value terms - but they also gain respect for the structure of opposing arguments. And nearly every historical conflict is a conflict of values.

Even the worst regimes in history cloaked themselves in values:

• Nazi Germany justified itself with appeals to national pride and racial health.

• The Soviet Union claimed to uphold worker dignity and economic fairness.

Instead of dismissing them as irrational evil, we should help students analyze how seemingly noble values, when unmoored from other ethical anchors, can be twisted into justifications for atrocity.

This isn’t just about history. Students deal with value conflicts every day:

• Do I go home for dinner as my parents asked, or keep playing with my friends?

• Should I defend a friend with unpopular views, or distance myself to avoid social blowback?

When students learn that every decision is a balance of values, they develop ethical literacy - a lifelong skill more powerful than any ideology. They also learn to make better decisions and advocate for themselves more clearly.

AskHillel also allows for cultural and moral pluralism. Different communities may prioritize different values. That’s fine, as long as none of those values violate core ethical anchors like dignity and life.

Students can be taught to respect others’ frameworks without losing confidence in their own. This opens the door to real dialogue—not just tolerance, but moral conversation.

Some classical education theorists have proposed cultivating individual virtues like courage or wisdom. But AskHillel is different.

Virtue education centers on personal growth. AskHillel centers on relational obligation - how you affect and answer to others: your family, your community, your country, and the world.

It doesn’t just ask, What kind of person are you becoming? It asks, Whom do you owe? What must you uphold?

This is a better moral foundation for education—because it teaches responsibility before pride, clarity before ideology, and accountability before performance.

Without a coherent moral framework, students are left vulnerable - to propaganda, peer pressure, and moral confusion. They are told what to believe without being shown how to reason. They are punished for dissent without being taught how to argue.

AskHillel offers a solution: a values-based, relational responsibility system that scales from personal life to global politics. It is the foundation of an education system that builds thinkers, not followers—and moral adults, not ideological weapons.

We need this in classrooms now.

---

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

EoZ interviewed by A Philosophical Jew (video)

I had a fun discussion with A Philosophical Jew about my AskHillel Jewish ethics AI project on his podcast. Check it out!

Read More

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.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Resolving the "Rights" vs. "Duties" Philosophical Problem

For centuries, moral and political philosophy has been entangled in the tension between rights and duties.  On one side stand advocates of rights, insisting on inherent entitlements to life, liberty, speech, or property, which are often treated as inviolable and absolute. On the other, duty-based systems focus on obligations: what we owe to one another, to society, or to a higher moral ideal.

This conflict is not just academic. It plays out in political debates, legal systems, workplace policies, and personal decisions. Who wins when one person’s “right to speak” clashes with another’s “right to safety”? Are these claims equal? Is one more fundamental? Can either be limited?

Traditions across time have sought to resolve this problem. From Confucian role ethics to medieval natural law to modern personalist philosophy, many thinkers have emphasized that rights only make sense within a network of duties. But even so, contemporary discourse - especially in the West - tends to treat rights as freestanding absolutes. This often leads to moral gridlock, where no claim can yield without appearing to betray justice itself.

My own journey in developing the AskHillel ethical framework began with frustration toward this rights-based thinking. Rights often seemed like floating moral trump cards that are asserted without context, weighed without tradeoffs, and wielded without accountability. By contrast, obligations offered structure, relationships, and clarity. I began to favor a duty-first worldview, where moral coherence came not from what one could demand, but from what one was responsible for. I even wrote that rights themselves are a fiction.

And yet… something didn’t sit right.

Despite its flaws, the language of rights clearly served a vital function. It pointed to something deep in the human moral intuition: the need for protection, dignity, justice, and fairness. Rights language resonates with people for a reason. Could it be refined rather than discarded?

Then yesterday, as I was writing another article, it hit me:

Rights aren’t metaphysical absolutes. They’re values.

The word "rights" is famously ambiguous. It can refer to:

• Legal guarantees (e.g. the right to vote),
• Moral claims (e.g. a right to be treated with dignity),
• Political slogans (e.g. "the right to choose" or "the right to bear arms"),
• Or philosophical assumptions about personhood and freedom.

These usages often blur together. That’s one reason why rights-based arguments frequently collapse into shouting matches. People use the same words to mean very different things—and treat all versions as equally sacrosanct.

My reframing resolves this confusion. If all forms of “rights” are understood as expressions of values, then we are no longer debating abstractions. We’re dealing with real, nameable, ethically actionable priorities: the value of autonomy, the value of truth, the value of life, the value of dignity.

This reframing provides a common grammar. Whether we’re debating a legal right to protest, a moral right to privacy, or a political right to healthcare, we can now ask a more meaningful question:

What value is being asserted—and how should it be weighed against other values in this context?

AskHillel is a derech-based ethical reasoning framework that treats values as the basic building blocks of moral decision-making. Its architecture includes:

• Tiered prioritization: Values are organized by ethical urgency. Life and truth typically sit at the top (Tier 1A), followed by foundational societal values (Tier 1B), and then amplifying or situational values (Tier 2).
• Override logic: When values conflict, AskHillel applies structured override rules to resolve the tension. For example, the value of life can override the value of speech during times of imminent threat or incitement.
• Contextual evaluation: All values are assessed relationally—meaning, the weight of a value depends on who is affected, the type of harm involved, and the proximity or immediacy of the moral claim.

By understanding rights as values within this system, we gain an elegant solution to longstanding moral dilemmas. There is no need to debate whether rights are “natural,” “granted,” “inalienable,” or “alienable.” They are simply values that must be weighed—just like all other values—using transparent principles and override logic.

This brings practical benefits:

1. From Stalemate to Moral Triage

Instead of clashing “rights” claims, like speech vs. safety, religion vs. equality, or privacy vs. justice, we can now evaluate which values are at stake, and apply a coherent process to resolve them. This enables principled ethical triage rather than ideological deadlock.

2. Clarifies Ambiguous Debates

Many public disputes rely on buzzwords like “freedom” or “justice,” which mean radically different things to different people. AskHillel’s value-based grammar disambiguates them. For example, one person’s “freedom” may prioritize autonomy, while another’s emphasizes social stability. By making the underlying values explicit, we create space for actual dialogue.

3. Transcends Legal Minimalism

Law may recognize rights, but law is often reactive and limited. “Rights” is treated like a concept that is protected by law and therefore moral. By translating rights into values, we enable deeper ethical reasoning. For instance, a company legally allowed to run offensive ads may still violate the value of public dignity or communal trust. AskHillel gives institutions a tool to think beyond compliance toward integrity.

4. Promotes Responsible Freedom

When rights are treated as values, they are no longer passive entitlements but active ethical priorities. The question shifts from “What am I allowed to do?” and "What is owed to me?" to “What am I responsible for, given the values at stake and who is affected?” This shift nurtures maturity and moral agency.

5. Enables Shared Moral Action

In a fragmented world, shared frameworks are rare. AskHillel offers a common foundation. When communities or institutions adopt the same grammar of values - even if they prioritize and rank them differently - they gain a mechanism for cooperation without coercion.

This reframing of rights as values does not weaken the moral force behind rights discourse—it strengthens it. It allows us to preserve what matters most in rights-based ethics (dignity, protection, autonomy) while discarding the absolutism that leads to gridlock, irresponsibility, or conflict.

Rights are powerful because they name things we care about. But their power becomes destructive when they are treated as untouchable or context-free. Once we recognize that rights are simply prioritized values, the conflict between rights and duties collapses. Duties flow naturally from the values we uphold. And values can be managed, weighed, and balanced—transparently, responsibly, and with moral clarity.

AskHillel doesn’t reject rights. It translates them.

And in doing so, it offers something rare: a path forward.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Does Islam as practiced today have the ability to be a reliably moral system? An ethoskeletal analysis

A recent British survey shows that more than half of the public think Islam is not compatible with British values.

As my followers know I have been working on universalizing Jewish ethics, and this includes a value-centric view of humanity. Every person, organization, political entity and defined group of people have a value system - a set of values that is both explicit and often implicit. 

In the course of my work on universalizing Jewish ethics, I came up with the concept of an ethoskeleton. This is a set of attributes that are a prerequisite for a moral system to work in a positive way. The concern is not with sincerity or piety, but with systemic architecture: the ability of a moral system to self-regulate, prevent abuse, and resolve moral conflicts transparently

 

 They include:

• Corrigibility (Can self-correct)
• Transparency (Explainable logic)
• Dignity (Respects human worth)
• Relational Integrity (Contextually aware)
• Override Logic (Can resolve conflicts)
• Anavah (Epistemic humility)

This is a fairly high bar. But without each of these in place, any moral system can degenerate into immorality. It can be hijacked by malicious actors, minor values can be exaggerated to override major values, it can be poorly interpreted without a transparent process to keep it on course. 

Christianity and Judaism as they exist today pass most of the tests, so the ethoskeleton is not biased against religion. However, Islam as institutionally practiced in much of the Sunni world, and often imported uncritically into diaspora contexts, lacks key elements of the ethoskeleton. (This does not apply universally to all expressions of Islam to my understanding.) Sharia  law cannot evolve within Islam today, Islamic legal rulings are inaccessible to non-scholars so their logic is not widely available and opaque, and most flavors of Islam asserts epistemic superiority, not humility.

As examples, Islam as it exists today can assert that martyrdom is the highest purpose of man, or that honor is worth more than life itself, or that Islam's support for bigamy is a higher value than a national law against the practice. These are nor moral positions that value life and human dignity above all. They may be consistent but they cannot easily coexist with other ethical systems, and there is a straight line from Islam's ethoskeletal failures and the values going awry. 

When looked from this perspective, Islam, as practiced today, cannot be guaranteed to be a moral system. 

The British people's instinct that Islam is incompatible with British values seems sound. British values include celebrating satire including of religion while Islam rejects  of any blasphemy, mocking prophets or drawing Mohammed. That by itself is a serious value clash.

If the Muslim community would adopt the ethoskeleton as a basis for any moral system, things would be much different. Fiery preachers could be held to account and criticized publicly, forcing them to publicly and transparently defend their positions. Value clashes like importance of human life vs. martyrdom and honor could be well defined. 

I am not saying here that this proves that Islam is immoral. I am saying that it does not have the minimum requirements necessary to resist it being perverted into an immoral system. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More