INSIGHT
5761 - #11
Ethics of the Mind
When
Canada declared war on Germany in September of 1939, the
vote in the House of Commons was almost unanimous. One
individual, J.S. Woodsworth, opposed the declaration of
war. As a pacifist, Mr. Woodsworth made an impassioned
speech challenging war; this event is considered by many
to be one of the finest moments in the history of the
Canadian Parliament. Even as every other member of the
House of Commons voted to declare war, Mr. Woodsworth was
recognized for his courageous ethical stand and his
commitment to his principles. We can only be thankful
that others did not share Mr. Woodsworth's ethical
perspective, an ethical perspective that, if shared by
the majority of legislators in the Allied countries,
could have led to the destruction of the world.
Unfortunately, without judging Mr. Woodsworth himself, I,
in turn, can only define his position as one of
foolishness and, even, evil.
Ethics are often perceived to exist in a vacuum. They are
deemed to be solely reflections of the personality of an
individual. We define people as ethical in the same way
we refer to other personality traits. This individual is
out-going. This one is pensive. This one is highly
ethical. It is deemed to be a statement of the emotional
make-up of the person. The statement that someone is
ethical indicates that he/she has a strong caring for
others and/or a commitment to an ideal. So Mr. Woodsworth
was seen by his colleagues. His impassioned speech
reflected the essence of his personality. Here was an
individual with an ideal; more so, he embodied the ideal.
One could see it in his eyes. Yet a distinction must be
made between these ethical emotions that are tied to
personality and the essential definition of ethical
behaviour. Ethics does not exist in a vacuum. Proper
ethical conduct must consider the reality of the
situation. Mr. Woodsworth had what we would term ethical
emotions but ethical emotions do not necessarily lead to
ethical behaviour. In 1939 for the sake of humanity, war
was necessary. Ethical emotions have to confront reality
to determine the correct course of action. Ethics
ultimately cannot be the product of the heart but ethical
behaviour has to be determined by the mind.
Emotions inherently reflect the short term. They are
barometers of the immediate response to a situation. If
we see death, our emotional response reflects our
immediate feelings to the event of death. War is
horrible; the ethical emotional response to war must be
one of repugnance. But inherent to the very essence of a
Jewish response to life is that we do not consider only
the short term but the long term. Our emotions are to be
controlled. We are to use our minds to project beyond the
short term response of the emotion to see long term
effect and then determine behaviour in consideration of
all factors. As much as one's ethical emotional response
is to avoid war, there are times that, notwithstanding
the depth of emotions to the contrary, one's ethical
response of the mind must be to enter into war. To only
follow the emotion is to end in greater harm. To only
follow the emotion is actually to do what is not ethical.
This is not simply an argument for the end to justify the
means. It may be that, in consideration of all factors,
the end does not necessarily justify the means. The cases
in Jewish Law which declare that one must sacrifice one's
life rather than violate the law1 are examples of situations where
the end does not justify the means. There are also
situations where people argue for the end to justify the
means to pursue simply an emotional desire. What must be
demanded in the realm of ethics is that ethics leaves the
realm of the emotional and enters the realm of the mind.
Our ethical responses cannot be tugs upon our hearts but
rather considered judgements of our minds.
This, of course, is not to say that there is no place for
the emotions of the ethical. We can only render correct
ethical decisions of the mind if we have developed proper
ethical personalities. Our emotions declare what our
concerns should be. The emotions of ideals and
consideration for others must be the foundation of our
being. In fact, the application of our minds is to ensure
that these desires be met not only in the short term but
in the long term. The declaration of war in 1939 was
correct precisely because of these ideals and
considerations for others. In effect, by following his
emotions, Mr. Woodsworth was being inconsiderate. It is
the mind, it is ethical behaviour determined by thought
even as it seems to the emotions alone to be unethical,
that is the ultimate expression of the ethical.
This, of course, is Yaakov Avinu. Yaakov's ethical
emotional integrity and essence is summed up in one
sentence.2 He was above all
else an idealist and a man of integrity. This was the
essence of his personality. The entire story of Yaakov's
life, however, seems to show how he acted contrary to
this emotional essence. The entire life of Yaakov in fact
is a declaration of ethics of the mind. His very idealism
demanded in thought that he ensure that the blessing be
passed to him rather than Esav - and so he acted even as
his emotions must have challenged him. His very integrity
must have demanded in thought that he define his
financial contracts with Lavan in that way that he did,3 even as an
emotional response would define the matter differently.
Idealism and integrity demanded such responses to Esav
and Lavan. The emotions of integrity and idealism do not
see the factors of reality; the emotions do not see Esav
and Lavan. The mind considers all factors, understands
integrity and idealism in the context of the situation,
projects the full effect of behaviour and thus renders
the truly ethical conclusion.
Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes
1 See Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, chap. 5. Of
course, the most well-known examples of such cases are
murder, incest/adultery and idolatry which in all cases
must not be transgressed.
2 Bereishit 26:27.
See further Rashi.
3 See Bereishit
30:25-42. See, further, Rashi, Bereishit 31:41.
Return to top
|