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

Rethinking Free Speech as a Moral Value, Not an Absolute Right

As antisemitism and other forms of hate proliferate in social media, mainstream media and elsewhere, the question is how this can be handled without hurting the concept of free speech itself?

Looking at this through the lens of values can help both define the problem more precisely and lead to a potential solution. 

When one uses the language of rights, with respect to free speech and everything else, it implies that the right is an absolute good. But rights are not inalienable. They are always limited in some way - right to property does not justify theft, right to life doesn't mean an army cannot send one into a dangerous situation, and right to liberty doesn't mean that you can drive through a red light. 

It is much more accurate to think of these in terms of values. Free speech is a value, and an important one, but like most values, it can clash with other values - the value of life, the value of privacy, the value of living one's life without harassment. When values conflict, rules must be made to navigate these competing values. And when we change from the language of rights to that of values, it is much easier for people to see the reality - rights sound inviolable while values must be weighed.

Free speech doesn't only conflict with other values - it can also help strengthen other values like truth-seeking, accountability, exposing injustice, and individual conscience. 

As such, speech is never morally neutral. Words shape behavior, culture, and society. They can build or destroy, clarify or confuse. How can we strengthen speech that contributes to society while combating speech that is detrimental?

Most people understand that free speech is not truly unlimited. Direct incitement to murder or genocide is not free speech in any jurisdiction I am aware of. There are existing laws against those, if only sporadically enforced.

Yet some of the most dangerous speech does not call for violence directly. Instead, it prepares the ground for violence by dehumanizing others, spreading conspiracies, or creating an atmosphere of fear and rage. This kind of speech - what we might call enabling speech - does not always break the law, but it erodes public safety in predictable ways.

When this speech spreads during times of heightened tension or real-world threats, it is not enough to defend it in the name of abstract freedom. If we know that certain patterns of speech regularly precede violence or discrimination, then allowing them to go unchecked is a form of moral negligence. Calling speech a "right" muddies the waters here - when speech creates an environment of hate it cannot be let off the hook as an unchallenged, unlimited value. 

This isn't a theoretical concern. Increased levels of hate directly contributed to the deaths of  Jews in the fatal firebombing in Boulder and the shooting outside the Jewish museum in Washington. People's lives are at risk, and speech is part of the pattern that lead to murder. 

This is where artificial intelligence can play a constructive role. Rather than acting as a digital judge, AI can serve as a kind of moral sensor: tracking when real-world incitement is rising and temporarily limiting the amplification of speech that historically contributes to it.

So, for example, when an AI on a social media platform sees more posts that directly call for harm to a group of people, it can trigger a protocol where posts that demean that group, or that call for attacking a subset of that group, or that in general can contribute to an atmosphere that can prompt viewers towards hate, to put guardrails in place. 

These guardrails can include limiting the reach of such posts, telling the posters that their specific post is enabling harm and may be re-written and adding notes to posts pointing out their use of harmful stereotypes. It must be made clear that these steps are temporary, only as long as the hate and incitement are endangering real people. 

This is not a system of permanent censorship. It is a form of ethical triage - prioritizing safety and dignity when the moral climate becomes dangerously unstable. The approach is not about banning ideas or silencing people. It is about recognizing patterns of harm and acting with caution when danger levels rise. Just as societies adjust behavior during natural disasters or public health emergencies, we can adjust how speech is managed during periods of heightened social risk.

Critics will ask whether such a system could chill legitimate dissent. That is a fair concern. But the goal is not to suppress criticism or unpopular views. The system focuses only on times and contexts where certain types of rhetoric, even if legal, predictably contribute to real-world danger. It uses moderation tools sparingly, applies them transparently, and provides opportunities for correction.

Speech, in this model, is not treated as untouchable, but as a serious moral act. Like all powerful acts, it carries responsibility. And when the stakes are high - when lives or public trust are on the line - that responsibility must be taken seriously.

In a moral society, no single value can stand entirely alone. Free speech matters deeply, but it must walk alongside other values like human dignity, public safety, and truth. When those values come into conflict, responsible societies do not pick favorites. They balance, they weigh, and they respond with care.

Free speech is not sacred because it is untouchable. It is sacred because of what it protects. And when it stops protecting and starts enabling harm, a moral society must step in: not to silence, but to correct, to heal, and to preserve what really matters.

---

---

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

 

Read More

Rethinking Liberty Through Moral Relationship

The United States is now in its 250th year, and this is a true milestone in human history. When we talk about America, we mean the unparalleled freedom that America represents. It represents a new way of governance and it has affected the world in uncountable positive ways.

But freedom is one of those concepts that can easily be misused and hijacked. What, exactly, does it mean in a moral system?

When we talk about freedom, we usually mean the ability to act without external restraint - to choose one's path, speak one's mind, and shape one's life without interference. In many secular ethical systems, particularly those rooted in liberal individualism, freedom is equated with autonomy: the right of the individual to determine their own values and actions. Sometimes it is framed as "freedom from" being limited in some way, sometimes as "freedom to" pursue one's goals, but either way, the concept generally assumes that liberty is defined by independence.

However, this definition misses the most fundamental fact about humans: we are part of a larger world. Unless you are a monk on a mountaintop, you are in relationship with others. This means that your decisions carry weight beyond yourself. 

Choices are not made in a vacuum. In reality, we are never morally alone. Every decision we make has consequences, whether for ourselves or for others. Every value we act upon transforms the world in some way. This recognition undercuts the notion of morally neutral autonomy. If our actions always affect someone, then every choice carries ethical weight.

Once we recognize that our lives are embedded in a web of relationships, the meaning of freedom changes. Autonomy does not disappear, but it is no longer the absence of obligation. Rather, it becomes entwined with obligation. Freedom becomes the space in which we exercise our agency within relationships of consequence and care. Moral responsibility is not something externally imposed by law or religion; it is a natural consequence of being a self who acts in a world shared with others. 

Even when you make a decision that seems to be about you alone, it entails responsibility. Because you are not only dealing with yourself as you are today, but the person you will be tomorrow. Just as you have responsibilities for the others in your life, you have responsibilities to your future self. Your decisions shape that person. 

Moreover, you also have a responsibility to your past.  Your history, your ancestors, your background helps shape who you are and unless your heritage perpetuates harm, you bear some responsibility to honor and evolve it  - not by preserving it unchanged, but by carrying forward what is good. We do not only exist at this moment in time but we must maintain an awareness of how we got here and where we want to go. 

Once this is recognized, freedom is not defined by the absence of rules, but by the presence of ethical purpose. To be free is not simply to choose, but to choose in a way that honors the dignity of others and sustains the moral ecosystem we inhabit. The question is not "what am I allowed to do?" but "what am I responsible for, given who I affect?"

AskHillel, the ethical system I’ve been developing based on Jewish thinking, is one of the only fully structured ethical systems built from the ground up on the truth that to be human is to be morally entangled. Responsibility and obligation is baked in; respect for the dignity of others is non-negotiable, and you have a concentric circle of obligations outbound from yourself and your family to your community, your country and the world. Relationships aren't incidental to the system - they are the very core of the system. And this reflects the way we really are, not some idealized concept of personhood.

Therefore, freedom is sacred not because it is limitless, but because it is answerable. The mature exercise of freedom means asking not only what is possible, but what is right - not from fear of consequence, but from fidelity to the relationships that give our lives meaning.

Morality isn't a restriction on freedom. It shapes what freedom itself means. 

---

---

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

 

Read More

Values are the atoms of human society

There are many ways to try to figure out the world. 

You can look at history as being a series of events, facts and actions. Or you can look at the world as chronology: either how trends are cyclical or progress towards completion. Some look at the world as simply the sum total of physics and biology with little rhyme or reason. Some modern theories say that the world must be viewed through the lens of power struggles, domination and resistance. And others see the world as a series of narratives.

As I have embedded myself in my Jewish ethics project, I think that these are all very incomplete. I believe that the most accurate way to see the world is as if values are the atoms of our universe.

Time, in this view, simply provides the sequence.  Actions are putting the values into motion. But values are the driver for those decisions to act. Values tell us why something mattered, not just when it happened.

The AskHillel AI I built, using this framework,  ends up being very good at interpreting things way beyond what we would normally call ethics. It is built with values, so it looks at the world that way. Because Jewish thinking looks at contradiction as not a problem but as something to be understood and reconciled, it naturally tries to find consistent patterns by seeking the underlying values that might explain what seems contradictory.

Jewish thinking, especially Talmudic and halachic thinking, has the concept of a "derech," a consistent way to reconcile rabbinic positions. AskHillel looks for a derech in not only ethics but in history, sociology, psychology, AI - really any human centered field, centered on values. And it does a surprisingly good job when it uses that prism.

Last week I asked Gemini AI to give a list of the most perplexing people in history, and AskHillel gave an analysis of their biographies by seeing how well they lived by Jewish values and by applying a "derechological" framework. The results were quite sophisticated analyses - certainly university political science paper level. Here, for example, is part of AskHillel's comparison of the "derachot" of Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong:

🔍 Moral & Strategic Blueprint Insights

Common Derachot:

Both used revolution as operational permission, ideology to shroud power consolidation, and charisma/institutional cults to maintain control.

Key Differences:

Mao’s derachot were more systemically violent, doctrinally infused into governance, and ideologically totalizing—impacting social structures, economics, and inner-party theology at massive scale.

Castro’s blueprint remained tactically authoritarian but rhetorically revolutionary; Mao’s was philosophically totalitarian, with ideological extremism as a structural necessity.

📌 Final Ethical Reflection

Both leaders present coherent moral-strategic patterns: revolutionary ethics used to justify authoritarian rule. But Mao’s derachot are far more radical and comprehensive. He fused ideology with violence—not just as an occasional tool—but as the engine of sustained political order.

Castro deployed authoritarianism with revolutionary theater; Mao made revolution the infrastructure of authority.

It also did an analysis of the "derachot" of corporations, Supreme Court decisions over time, and  Biblical books. It then came up with "chiddushim" - novel insights - as to how charismatic people or  some authoritarian leaders bend values around their own ambitions - which are often negative values themselves. 

The sophistication of these analyses indicates that values might be the most accurate way to look at many, if not most, human based fields. They are, truly, the fundamental building blocks of our world.

Philosophers call the study of values axiology. Call this theory "axiological primacy."

When you look at the world this way, philosophical problems melt away. Humans don't have values as external properties - we are the sum of our values in a fundamental sense. Values aren't external to us, they are a part of us. If the "is" of Hume's Law are values, then the "ought" comes naturally. 

I am not the first one to come up with this idea, but we took it further. 

There are a lot of values out there, but it seems that most people have their values set from a young age. Morality isn't that you take on all values - for most people, it is to do the best with the values that your own personality has already adopted. 

This fits in with Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory. Rambam (Maimonides) says something similar - that people have different innate temperaments (middot) which form the raw material for their moral development.  

In this sense, we can say that for each of us, values are relatively stable and moral growth is learning when and how to act on them. If you are going in the wrong direction, that is where you can re-align - or, in Judaism, do teshuva (repentance.) 

The world is not just a series of events or a sequence of time. It is the sum total of our moral decisions, based on our values. A biography is the story of a person's value decisions. History is the interaction between different national or leaders'  values. Perhaps psychology is really the study of individual values and therapy is about changing people's derech to aim to fulfill their own personal values.

This is a powerful way to look at the world. It centers our own agency. Natural disaster just happen, but human decisions don't - and history is the story of decisions based on values. 

Living up to our values is  what gives life meaning. And nothing is more important than that.

---

---

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

 

Read More

A challenge to - and a redemption of - modern philosophy's love of abstraction

Modern philosophy, for all its brilliance and rigor, often suffers from a foundational flaw: it tends to treat abstraction as an end in itself. In its pursuit of purity, it frequently drifts into a mode of intellectualism that detaches thought from responsibility, treating moral dilemmas as puzzles, and ethical obligations as thought experiments. In this sense, modern philosophy can be seen as engaged in a quiet but profound flight from responsibility.

Think about philosophy's concept of  "mind–body dualism," the idea that the mind and the body are separate entities. This can lead to profoundly unethical results, where actions are divorced from the mind, and responsibility for actions evaporates.

Or the idea of skeptical solipsism - the view that only one's own mind is knowable, casting doubt on the reality of others’ minds or the external world  This can be used to avoid any relationships, any interaction with one's community and family, all in the name of philosophy.

But perhaps most of all is philosophy's love of abstraction - of puzzling out questions like "when does a pile of sand become a heap?" Solving theoretical problems is only meaningful when they can be leveraged to solve real problems, but too often philosophy elevates these questions as if finding the answers are themselves moral imperatives.

AskHillel, the secular framework for Jewish ethical reasoning, offers a radical alternative. 

It looks at philosophy through the same prism that it looks at every human endeavor to see if it meets the preconditions for any ethical system to be morally trustworthy, what can be called the ethoskeletal axioms. 

Corrigibility – Can the idea self-repair or evolve in the face of moral critique? Many philosophical systems treat themselves as closed; AskHillel demands iterative integrity.

Transparency – Can the reasoning process be laid bare, or does it obscure its premises behind jargon? Much of modern philosophy fails to show its scaffolding.

Dignity – Does the idea uphold the innate worth of human beings? Abstract systems like solipsism or utilitarian totalism often erase this.

Override Logic – Can the system resolve value conflict responsibly, or does it collapse into paralysis or binary thinking?

Relational Integrity – Does it account for roles, covenant, and responsibility within relationships? Philosophies of hyper-individualism often fail here.

Epistemic Humility – Does the idea acknowledge the limits of certainty, or does it weaponize doubt or claim moral infallibility?

To be sure, not all philosophies are equal, and each kind will respond differently to this test. But many classic philosophical constructs falter when tested against these axioms. Solipsism fails dignity, relational integrity, and override logic. Mind-body dualism often dodges corrigibility and relational grounding. Infinite regress paralyzes moral clarity under the guise of epistemic rigor. Even elegant thought systems, when left abstract, violate transparency and dignity by refusing to take a stand.

AskHillel challenges the assumption that philosophy must float free of moral gravity. It insists instead that ideas must be lived, not just theorized. Concepts must be inhabited, not merely defined.

The essence of AskHillel's way of looking at the world lies in a simple inversion: abstraction is not dismissed, but grounded. Its test is not whether a concept is internally consistent, but whether it helps sustain a moral structure that holds under pressure. In this sense, AskHillel doesn't just practicalize philosophy; it elevates it. By asking what any given abstraction demands of us ethically, AskHillel performs a kind of secular sanctification, adding meaning to what had been seen as a mind puzzle.

Take, for instance, the Ship of Theseus. This is a famous metaphysical riddle about identity: if every part of a ship is replaced over time, is it still the same ship? 

AskHillel doesn't discard the question: it reframes it. When does a person, institution, or nation remain morally accountable despite internal transformation? If a company employed slaves in the past, is it still responsible to fix the harm many decades later after it has changed management, headquarters, employees, its own mission statement?  This is no longer a riddle; it's a diagnostic for teshuvah, justice, and communal continuity. Abstract becomes actionable.

Or consider the Sorites paradox which asks when a collection of grains becomes a "heap."   AskHillel hears a deeper ethical call: when does small acts of harm accumulate? When does silence become complicity? When does a fetus become a human? Jewish ethics is attuned to continuity as opposed to the discreteness often assumed in philosophy, but sometimes there is a line that is crossed - where exactly is that line?  The question of a "heap" becomes a test of Areivut (responsibility) and dignity.

For this article, I created a completely new concept I called  "qwertyism, " defined as the irritation felt when someone takes a parking spot you were eyeing. A traditional philosopher might analyze its taxonomy: Is qwertyism the same as seeing someone grab the last bag of chips? Or the elevator doors closing on you? What about when a spot looks open but has a motorcycle? A cone? A hydrant?

When I asked AskHillel how it would deal with the concept, it looked at it from a different perspective: 

Does qwertyism expose latent entitlement that undermines gratitude? How should one ethically respond to feelings of minor loss or resentment? Is qwertyism a test of Anavah (humility) or Areivut (shared public goods)? AskHillel elevated what was meant to be a silly thought experiment into a path for how to become a better person. 

Where traditional Jewish ethics grounds itself in divine covenant, AskHillel is secular. But it retains the structure of brit through shared axioms: truth exists, dignity matters, responsibility is binding. These values are not commanded; they are engineered into the system because without them, moral life collapses. AskHillel asks not "What is the good?" but "What kind of structure can people live in without their dignity breaking?"

This is the core reversal: modern philosophy often chases coherence. AskHillel chases consequence. Where the former admires ideas, the latter demands that they hold human weight. In this way, AskHillel turns philosophy back toward responsibility, restoring the bridge between reason and moral presence. Just as Judaism teaches that any object or idea can become sacred when used for sacred purposes,  AskHillel says any  idea can become meaningful when used for moral purposes. The abstract questions are not silly,  but we need to reveal their moral core, and  endow them with meaning:  a secular version of kedushah, holiness. 

Philosophy need not be abandoned. But it must be reclaimed. Its flight from responsibility is a major error.  AskHillel offers a path for that reclamation.

It is not the end of abstraction. It is its elevation.

---

---

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

 

Read More