As of this writing, Israel’s war rages on. It has raised moral questions, or dilemmas, that need addressing. I normally stay away from politics. But this situation begs your indulgence because of the current state of affairs.
Everyone faces a moral dilemma in life. It’s unavoidable. It is how you handle it, or should, that is at the core of this story—our moral compass. How you deal with a moral problem depends on your age, upbringing, religious background and culture. So, let’s begin.
It’s always helpful to define terms first. Moral or ethical dilemmas, in my opinion, are serious problems with only two solutions—the right way or the wrong way. In a dictionary, like the Oxford Languages Dictionary, you get this: “a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle.” I prefer my definition. We do not need to delve further into definitions. For our story, we also use ethics and morals interchangeably.
Moral quandaries are inevitable in everyday life. Doctors make choices as lives hang in the balance. Some people cheat when filing tax returns because Uncle Sam has plenty of money, right? Addicts choose from options that affect them and their families and friends. And criminal lawyers often represent clients whose innocence is doubtful. There is no end to the list.
May I suggest that our childhood planted the seeds of moral decision-making when we were still learning how to make the right choices? Maybe you remember seeing a classmate cheating during a final exam by hiding crib sheets up his sleeves. At that moment, were you willing to alert the teacher or let sleeping dogs lie? Do you ruin a friendship or keep the relationship intact? How did you rationalize your actions? Only you can answer these questions.
Moral decisions are everyday occurrences in Jewish life. Jews live by the Torah, which guides us to be just, kind and charitable—tikkun olam—to fix a broken world. We often decide whether to keep this law or that one. The major religions all follow a similar path.
There is another pertinent consideration. In my judgment, when a moral dilemma involves illegal or evil activity, all bets are off. Only one choice is acceptable. It would never be appropriate for our conduct to fall short of the highest standards.
This brings me to the Israel war. Various situations demand a choice between track one and track two. Of course, with the vicious murder of innocents, the fog of war lifts and our moral clarity is crystal clear.
However, try to imagine yourself in the following situations. What would you do in each instance?
The Case of “Both Side-ism”
Some politicians speak from both sides of their mouths. During this difficult time, there have been those who called for a de-escalation of hostilities by “both sides.” Others called for a truce by “both sides.”
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged “both sides” to reduce violence, despite Hamas’ inhumane atrocities. Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey said at a Boston rally, “There must be a de-escalation of the current violence,” equating “both sides” in the war. Students on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of unrest, called for de-escalation by “both sides” as if a moral equivalence existed.
Where would your moral compass take you?
The Case of Congressional Representative Rashida Tlaib
An example of choice #1 versus #2 is Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American representative who often criticizes Israel. She recently ignored a Fox News reporter’s question about Hamas’ brutality to babies in a widely viewed story. According to a New York Post story, a “video, which was aired on TV… showed correspondent Hillary Vaughn trailing Tlaib (D-Mich.) through a House office building hallway—with the journalist invoking the decapitation of Jewish children by jihadists at least a half-dozen times in just over a minute.” Tlaib refused to respond to the reporter’s questions.
Where would your moral compass take you?
Reaching Ethics Agreement Across Cultures
Mark Pastin is a Harvard graduate specializing in ethics. He is the CEO of the Council of Ethical Organizations, which promotes ethical practices in business and government. He outlined four rules for dealing with cultural differences when trying to agree.
“One of the biggest misconceptions about ethics is that it’s difficult or impossible to reach agreement with someone who comes from a culture that’s radically different from ours,” he said. “Most of us work with people from different generations, countries, races, ethnicities, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. So how do we solve ethical problems in business and reach agreement with people who are seemingly so different from us?”
Pastin continues with his four rules:
- Engage your sympathy and empathy.
- Focus on action.
- Find common ground.
- Don’t automatically blame cultural differences
We don’t always have the luxury of time to take such a measured approach to solving a moral dilemma. A good example is the Israel war. However, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said, “Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn’t the will to do what is right.”
Norman B. Gildin is the author of the popular book on nonprofit fundraising “Learn From My Experiences.” He is the president of Strategic Fundraising Group whose singular mission is to assist nonprofits to raise critical funds for their organization. His website is www.normangildin.com.
