For centuries, the dominant language of Western morality has been rights: the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, speech, education, healthcare, and more. I've
discussed this in
previous essays. Upon further thought, I suggest that the entire idea of rights is a fiction, and Jewish ethics shows this to be the case. Moreover, the discourse of rights is damaging to society.
Firstly, without even invoking Jewish ethics, a little thought shows that while rights discourse assumes that rights are universal and even unalienable, it is not true. The best example is the one right everyone would agree on: the right to life. Does a soldier in a (legal) war have the right to life? No, he is expected to risk his life, and his very job is to do dangerous things - perhaps even missions that are tantamount to suicidal. If the opposing army has the right to kill the soldier, then what does "right to life" mean? Partial or provisional rights are not rights.
Furthermore, as we've discussed, , the idea of rights makes people feel a sense of entitlement. It makes people think in terms what they are owed, not what they can contribute. Each person's rights can clash which makes everyone potential adversaries - free speech vs. privacy, for example. When rights are absolute, how do you decide between competing rights?
Moreover, the very language of rights makes no distinction between what is allowed and what is ethical. For right-based moral systems, anything that is a "right" is also moral by definition. This means that there is no ethical barrier to speaking ruinous gossip for no positive purpose, for example.
I’m not the first to question the idea of rights. Jeremy Bentham, a prime architect of utilitarianism, called natural rights “nonsense upon stilts.” Hannah Arendt noted that rights are dependent on being a citizen, which means that there are no universal rights at all. Alasdair MacIntyre, who recently passed away, ridiculed the entire concept of rights, saying “there are no such rights and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.”
Jewish ethics offers not only a critique of the rights-based model, but something richer: a system rooted in relationships, responsibility, shared obligations and covenant. It reframes the moral conversation not around what we are owed, but what we owe each other. What looks like a "right" in Jewish thought is often the visible result of others’ duties.
In this framework, what we call "rights" are the shadows cast by others' obligations. You have a "right" not to be stolen from because others are forbidden to steal. You have a "right" to safety because the community is obligated to protect you. These are not abstract entitlements but the byproduct of relational duties.
There is no “right” to life in a vacuum. But murder is categorically forbidden—except in edge cases like self-defense or war. And there is no contradiction because the priorities and triage principles are defined.
Instead of total, inalienable rights, Jewish ethics offers instead a layered structure of moral obligations - personal, communal, national - that interact to protect dignity, preserve justice, and respond to human need.
If there is any “right” in Jewish ethics, it is this: the moral freedom to act within the bounds of ethical obligation. That’s it. You are free to do anything that doesn’t violate what you owe to others.
This is not license—it is liberty with responsibility. And it’s enough.
So what about education, healthcare, wages, safety?
These aren’t rights in Jewish ethics. They are obligations - duties the state or community owes when individuals or families can’t fulfill them.
The state is obligated to provide a court system. It must support the poor. It must provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. Workers must be paid and protected from being abused. Public infrastructure must be built. These are all community or state-level obligations to the people in exchange for the covenantal agreement of following the law, and of paying taxes.
The question of who is responsible for providing essential services is an interesting one. The answer goes beyond pure ethics into political theory,. It is worth thinking about it in terms of Jewish ethics principles we have already discussed. After all, if Jewish ethics are universal, and can apply to every imaginable situation - which is my thesis - then it should have something to say about how a government is built and run, at least as an aspirational model.
Ideas for a democratic government that is centered on Jewish ethics
Consider the following paragraphs a trial balloon describing one way that a democratically elected government can adhere to Jewish ethical standards. It is not complete but it is aspirational. There may be other models, but this is a thought experiment to see how truly universal the Jewish ethical framework is. Most other secular ethical systems do not get close to even thinking about these sorts of issues.
It seems to me that the obligations of government to citizens follow the same tiered structure of obligations of citizens to others. In short, the concentric circles of responsibility that everyone has - to themselves, to their families, to their community, to their nation, and to the world - applies in the obverse: the state should only step in and provide services when the smaller units like family and community cannot do them for any reason.
The state is the safety net when the other systems fail.
This means that the primary responsibility of care belongs to the individual. But some things, like infrastructure or self defense, cannot easily be done by all but the wealthy, and that is where the government steps in. Similarly, if caring for orphans or the chronically ill is too onerous for the family or community, only then should the state subsidize or provide the care. People should always think of themselves as the primary responsible party and the state as a backup.
This is similar but not identical to the Catholic concept of ethical subsidiarity, but instead of defining which group has authority to act, the Jewish system describes who has the obligation to act and when. Each actor fulfills what they can in an outward direction of concentric community circles, and the state steps in precisely where failure occurs.
Interestingly, this also means that the person most responsible for themselves as individuals is themselves. Personal responsibility is the default, as opposed to modern society where everyone blames everyone else (their parents, their boss, their spouse) for their own perceived shortcomings.
This is how to build a better society.
There are still practical problems that would need to be solved, but this framework gives us a refreshing prism to view old problems anew.
One major question relates to changing government roles in response to new needs that it must provide for logistical, financial or practical reasons. Whenever the government is needed to provide a new service, there is always a cost which typically is seen in new taxes. But is this a new covenant between the people and the government? What happens if people don't want this new program? How, in a democratic government, can we keep the spirit of the covenant alive when it changes often?
Jewish tradition offers possible ways to solve this.
One is the idea of takkanot and g'zeirot, new laws enacted by the leaders to handle new situations. (Takkanot would be new positive laws, g'zeirot are new protections around existing ethical concepts, "fences" around laws, termed as "negative" laws.) Takkanot (as a generalized term for both) were only issued for exceptional circumstances. But crucially, these laws were given along with the reasons they are enacted, with the idea that when the circumstances change, the new law can and should be canceled. So new laws and services should be a last resort when necessary.
Another, more novel idea for negotiating new laws and services without holding a referendum for each one is a twist on the idea of representatives. In Jewish law, a "shaliach" is an agent who is empowered to act on behalf of an individual. Perhaps the representatives should have formal roles as shlichim, agents, who can decide on behalf of their own (local) communities which laws and services make sense to them. These agents are not lawmakers, they are not the government, and their only power is to decide on behalf of their people what laws are worthwhile knowing the tradeoff of increased taxes or other additional responsibilities.
But how do we protect minorities in such a system? How can the representatives who are representing their people ensure that everyone is treated fairly? Because legislation cannot override ethical principles. Major values like value of life, human dignity and freedom from persecution are basic functions of society and any proposed law that violates these would not be allowed at the outset. There is no concept of a "mandate" by a government elected with 53% or so of the vote to do whatever they want - every law must adhere to the basic ethical principles.
New laws and new services would be, by default, temporary unless a supermajority supports a permanent new service. Each one would have a mandatory periodic review to see whether it should continue. New organizations should not build new buildings but lease or rent; employees should typically not expect a job for life but be contractors.
This is a curious combination of libertarian and social centered government. Some services to help those most in need are not negotiable because they fulfill basic ethical requirements and the community level cannot pay for them. But the default behavior is that any new program is considered temporary except under exceptional circumstances.
The very existence of a Jewish ethical framework often shows how the current partisan divides between right/left or libertarian/socialist are not necessarily accurate reflections of the choices one can make. If you think that some parts of the liberal ideology makes sense and some parts of conservative thinking makes sense, it is nice to see that there are more than two choices in how to look at issues. Very possibly, the Jewish framework can provide a way out of the binary thinking that dominate American political life today and show that you can care for the needy, minimize government and still be consistent in your ideology.
This obligation-based framework:
-
Protects dignity without flattening context.
-
Allows for compassion without collapsing into relativism.
-
Encourages moral creativity without moral chaos.
Jewish ethics isn’t stingier than rights-based models; it’s deeper and more real. By asking, ‘What do I owe?’ instead of ‘What am I owed?’ it binds us together in ways no list of rights ever could
That’s not just more realistic. It’s more human.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
Buy 
.jpg)
