I like algorithms.
I once came up with a definition of antisemitism that I believe is superior to all others, because it allows one to look at any situation and decide, with very little room for bias, whether it is antisemitic or not. No "mights" or "mays" or "coulds" - just clarity.
As I wrote up with these Jewish ethical principles, I realized that they could do the same thing - become a method at create moral clarity for any situation.
Let's try some examples from popular culture (at least, popular culture in my day.)
1. "Imagine" by John Lennon
"Imagine" is a global anthem of peace and idealism, "Imagine" encourages a world without countries, religion, or possessions — suggesting that these are the sources of conflict. It has been praised by politicians and celebrities and performed at places like the Olympics to symbolize universal harmony.
At first glance, "Imagine" feels aligned with the Jewish value of peace (shalom). But a closer look reveals a deep conflict with core Jewish moral principles. The song's vision of peace is achieved by erasing moral distinctions: no nations, no religions, no individual property. Judaism, by contrast, insists on the sacredness of difference — the idea that moral law is contextual, rooted in covenant, identity, and responsibility.
"Imagine" removes all moral obligations. No one owns anything, believes in anything, or dies for anything. There is no brit — no covenant, no rooted community, no justice, just a dreamy sameness. It denies the Jewish value of tzedek (justice), because it avoids the messy work of deciding what is right. It denies emet (truth), because it elevates fantasy over moral reality. In the end, it substitutes wishful thinking for ethical clarity.
Moreover, in this utopian world Lennon asks us to imagine, there is no growth. There is no opportunity to help others because others have exactly what you do. There are few if any incentives to better yourself. There is no reason to strive for excellence, because everyone is the same.
Judaism doesn't pretend people aren't different. Differences are what makes the world interesting. Differences are what helps us learn from each other.
The Jewish lens doesn’t reject peace — but it insists on a peace that is built, not "imagined." A peace that is rooted in shared obligation and justice. One that is created while acknowledging differences, not in the flattening of moral identity.
2. Groundhog Day
In this classic comedic film, a selfish man named Phil is forced to live the same day over and over again until he changes. What begins as a curse becomes a vehicle for personal transformation.
Unlike "Imagine," Groundhog Day is profoundly moral. It is, in essence, a film about teshuvah — repentance and return. The main character begins the film as a narcissist, using the time loop for selfish gain. Over time, through trial, failure, and reflection, he becomes kind, generous, and wise — not to escape the loop, but because he chooses a better self.
This is Judaism in action. No divine voice, no miracle ending — just the slow process of moral growth. The film elevates free will, self-improvement, and the sanctity of time. It shows that goodness is not a one-time choice, but a discipline of daily moral action. Once Phil realizes that he cannot escape, he does the only thing that can get rid of an eternity of self-loathing: he chooses to become the best version of himself. Over the course of the story, his opinion of the townspeople he hated in the beginning becomes a true love for every human being.
The Jewish lens applauds this: a narrative where character is forged not by rules imposed from above, but by inner transformation.
3. Seinfeld
This famed sitcom centered on the lives of four friends in New York, often described as "a show about nothing." The characters navigate life with wit, pettiness, and complete moral detachment.
At first glance, one might think Seinfeld is amoral if not immoral. The characters are selfish, self-absorbed and uncaring. The Seinfeld world is a world without ethics, where the only thing the characters excel at are neurosis, irony, and endless cleverness. There is no growth. No one learns. The final episode literally convicts the characters for standing by while someone else suffers. It's a comic inversion of lo ta’amod al dam re’echa — the obligation not to stand idly by.
Ironically, this is what makes Seinfeld a moral show — not in message, but in consequence.. The characters do not get rewarded for their selfishness. One can imagine them now, thirty years later, still alone, still without anything to live for.
From a Jewish ethical lens, Seinfeld is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when covenant is stripped away. There is no brit, no shared responsibility, no moral aspiration — only self-referential jokes. It is funny because it’s empty. And it's empty by design.
Judaism doesn’t idealize perfection, but it insists on movement — on moral direction. Seinfeld rejects that. In doing so, it accidentally proves Judaism’s point.
4. The Prime Directive (Star Trek)
A central tenet of Starfleet ethics in the Star Trek universe, the Prime Directive prohibits interference in the development of alien civilizations, even to prevent suffering or injustice. It reflects a secular moral relativism and caution against colonialism.
On the surface, the Prime Directive appears noble: it aims to respect other cultures and prevent coercion. But through the Jewish moral lens, it reflects a deep abdication of responsibility. Judaism insists that moral clarity is possible, even in cross-cultural situations. Tzedek tzedek tirdof — justice must be pursued — not avoided out of fear of moral imposition.
Interestingly, in the original Star Trek, Captain Kirk violated the Prime Directive multiple times for what he considered the greater good - to avoid unnecessary deaths and to help societies that were stuck in destructive patterns to break out of them and grow. In the sequels, sometimes Kirk's loose application of the directive was criticized. Jean-Luc Picard once said, "Your Captain Kirk was a remarkable man, but his actions were sometimes... questionable by our standards today."
Kirk did some reckless things, but his treatment of the Prime Directive was consistent with Jewish ethics.
The Prime Directive elevates inaction to virtue. But Judaism teaches that silence in the face of injustice is complicity. There is no Jewish version of non-intervention when faced with evil. Abraham argues with God over Sodom. Moses confronts Pharaoh. Jewish ethics demands that we act, not that we retreat.
The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was the deadliest episode of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. The world watched but didn't interfere. In just 100 days, nearly a million people were killed.
That's the Prime Directive in action.
The Prime Directive fears moral absolutism. But Judaism doesn’t offer absolutism — it offers covenantal responsibility. There’s a difference.
These are some very different examples of applying the Jewish ethical lens to popular culture, but the same methods can apply to literature, news articles, poetry, politicians' statements - literally everything. This moral lens, this algorithm, can be learned by anyone and applied to everything. It is a tool for clarity in a foggy world, and a shield against emotional manipulation, propaganda, and bias.
This algorithm has a bias as well — but it's a bias toward Jewish ethics and the moral tradition of Western civilization. That is not a weakness. It is a strength.
Thursday, April 10, 2025
Elder of Ziyon.png)
Buy 
