The Essence of Morality & Ethics - Rabbi Akiva Tatz

I'm going to do a little bit of a showand tell and challenge you right everyone knows that uh Thornhill and uh Toronto Jews are North America's intellectual black belts so to try to keep you awake I'm going to try to prove that um the subject for this uh Series has been two worlds and so let's take a look at how we look at a subject which is fundamental to Being Human certainly to being Jewish and how the non-jewish or the secular the outside world looks at that and for that reason I'm going to quote some sources that are not from our world I mean we don't usually do that we don't need to do that we have whatever we need in Torah more or less as you'll hear from our brts but I'd like to begin by looking at something from the non-jewish world and seeing how we approach the same issue and the underlying question here the underlying subject is really the subject of our moral knowledge how do we know what's right and wrong and i' I'd like to try to show you that there's some surprising some surprising elements here but for this you're going to have to sit on the Ed edge of your seat and think with me I've seen more enthusiastic Expressions than that all right but um let's try to do this together so the subject is how we know what's right and wrong and how we ought to relate to that and develop it and use it in education of ourselves our children our students so here's here's is I think a a scenario that will illustrate this point very well in 1967 a very interesting British philosopher by the name of Philip aot wrote an article about abortion Philip aot was an interesting lady she was the um granddaughter of American president her mother Sarah was born in the White House in 1896 who was the American president in 1896 do Canadians know American history they avoid it well in 1896 Grover Cleveland was the American president and um Sarah his daughter was born in the white house she later ended up marrying a very famous British first world war Aristocrat and their daughter Philippa grew up in Britain she grew up at a time when girls were not supposed to be educated she never went to school in fact she was taught at home uh girls were supposed to look good and not think well that's how it was back then she made it to Oxford despite that and she became a well-known moral philosopher she was really atheistic her friend Elizabeth ancom was a well-known Roman Catholic philosopher their friend Iris Murdoch was part of the group interesting times interesting personalities but she became a leading thinker in the subject of ethics and morality and you probably remember thanks has to do with can you do with that as well thanks if you can make that higher that would be good but if you can't don't worry uh the 67 you probably remember was part of the time during which abortion was being very heatedly debated and she wrote an article about the ethics of abortion and in the course of that article she posed a an analogy if you like or an ethical dilemma that is subsquently become quite famous and to show you what it is I'm going to draw you a [Music] picture I don't know if you know that one of my many accomplishments is postmodern art as you will soon see can you hear me without the mic okay this is a trolley line and coming down the line you have a trolley okay here's your charol coming down the line you are standing right here but unfortunately on the trolley line there are five people tied to the track how's that not bad okay in a few seconds five people will be killed however right here is a Sidetrack if you're interested in railroads this is called a SP you can pull this sever which will deflect the train onto the Sidetrack away from the five people unfortunately on the Sid trck is one person do we get the problem any questions about the about the question okay so your your problem is you are standing as an innocent bystander actually in Philip foot's original piece she had you as the driver of the trolley but that's complicated that complicates things as I think you'll probably see and so other thinkers particularly A lady called Judith Jarvis Thompson who's a professor at MIT I think she's Jewish if I'm not mistaken she's modified the scenario so that you are standing at the side of the track you're not driving the train and your dilemma is do you do nothing and watch five people die or do you rapidly pull the lever change the points direct the train onto the Sidetrack where one person will die and five will be saved if you would deflect the train raise your hand okay you're in very good company I think probably about 70% of you said you'd Raise Your Hands In fact when given time to think about this about 94 to 95% of westerners would opt to deflect the train culture makes a difference here Asian people tend to Value community over individual more than Americans who tend to view individual over Community there are cultural differences here but if you survey western people particularly American college age students most of them would deflect the train in fact if you'd like to research this there is a uh Harvard University has a website I think it's called moral choices where they give you many scenarios like this and they invite you to click on your options and tens of thousands of people have done that so you can actually explore the the statistics and you can see how people respond but the vast majority well over 90% of people would deflect the Train by the way this whole field has become a new field of modern philosophy it's now called trolleyology right toolology all right and this is this is the field that she began okay how about the second how about this case okay trolley line going under a bridge here's your trolley coming down the line five people on the track and there is a f Man Standing on the bridge you're a scrawny emaciated skinny individual jumping onto the track won't do any good but if you just push him off the bridge onto the track in the path of the trolley you will stop the trolley he'll be killed but he'll stop the train and five people will be saved if you'd push him off the bridge raise your hand only two all right okay well that's interesting only two you're in good company less than 4% of Western people would do that and here we certainly have much less than that they would not push him onto the track and here's the challenge what's the difference all all I can see as a difference is that here you are bringing a train to a man and here you're bringing a man to a train you see that what you're doing in both cases is killing someone to save five people that's clearly your intention in both cases difference only is here you're doing it by bringing the train to the man to kill him and in this case you're bringing the man to the train to kill him but in both cases you using that death to save five people so what's the difference no what do you mean there's no difference 80% of you said you do that nobody said they do that there's clearly a difference contact okay so I knew you'd say that I knew you would say that he said that you have contact with a person here getting your hands dirty with murder you said directly so you notice if you look carefully I've set up a lever right there and this lever is connected to a trap door in the bridge okay when you pull the lever the trap door opens and he ever so gently low onto the track in the path of the train no getting your hands dirty don't have to touch him both cases are identical actions same distance same timing all you do is pull a lever in this case the lever sends the train to the man to kill him in this case the lever sends the man to the train to kill him what's the difference by the way I don't think direct or indirect makes any moral difference it might make an emotional difference but I don't think that's a significant moral Factor what's the difference your action is causing this man to die you have control equally in both cases let's not get confused in both cases you can do nothing and watch five people die or cause one person to die oh no that's cheating you can may not introduce any variables other than what I've given you now just one second here's a rule in gamor learning that you must keep all else equal the lawyers call this satus parabus you can only work with what I've given you don't you know you can't tell me these are your friends that's your mother-in-law you know you can't do that right no no all the variables have to stay the same that's a rule in science in the lab we freeze the variables even though life is not like that when I studied medicine they taught me the principles of medicine in glorious black and white Clarity life is never like that but we study the principles that way to isolate the principle and therefore Don't Tell Me Maybe This maybe that this is more likely that's more distant they're all they're both identical in every respect except for the yeah all people are already on track so is that one ready on a track no he's on top of a bridge what's the difference where he is he's not to be hit by a TR oh iure you both of these people are not just let's get this clear this fellow just one moment this fellow is a track that is never used in fact this track this track has never ever been used and never will unless you put the Train on it this fellow never falls off Bridges okay you get it and they're both tied up and in case you didn't notice he's fat too okay so we've leveled the playing field yeah I don't want emotional I want a principal difference of morality yes that's interesting your claim is that we respond this way because we've been taught by Society to relate to these differently first of all where does society teach us these two things are different killing someone to save five which societal element makes this different for us the hero you're a hero in both cases here you're saving you're a hero or a villain in both cases where's the fireman jumping into Sav here you're not in danger you're totally out of the situation in both cases you're not going to get hurt now I'm afraid you're not doing too well yeah you're cheating it's guaranteed one second I'm guaranteeing his death I told you both cases variables guaranteed if he has 100% death possibility I'm going to give him 100 don't give me variations in practicality what's the principal difference yeah what what's the moral difference between the cases pressure but then why did you raise your hand in the first case yeah yeah the delay is exactly the same I told you all the physical factors are identical 3 seconds till they die in both cases I don't want practical differences I want a principal difference yes that's that's interesting I think I'm intending to save five people in both cases but now you say something a bit more interesting let me tell you because you're failing miserably so far something very interesting the first point to extract from this exercise is something very interesting and that is I asked you for your response it didn't take you 5 Seconds to respond to this and most of you refused to respond to that when I ask you why you don't know that's very interesting when I ask you to articulate the difference if I did a survey as you walked into this room and I said why do you hold your moral positions you would say I'm an intelligent person I've worked them out they're consistent I'm intellectual really I ask you what to do you know immediately what to do and when I ask you to give me the intellectual rational you don't know that is very interesting that demonstrates that our moral intuition is not intellectual it's not an articulated process we did not go through what Society teaches us to do none of you even gave me a religious reason you should have said to me well the Torah says this and that or there's a principle you didn't do that you responded naturally and this is a very remarkable observation it means that we have a moral knowledge which is very deep and even to the extent that we cannot explain it even when given time and the challenge we know what to do that's very interesting I'm not claiming we always right in fact our moral intuition can be seriously distorted by society and by many other things but at root we have a moral sense is this authentic from a Jewish point of view I think it is I will give you some astounding examples first of all we have a statement der der which means many things but one of the things it means is a sense of justice and righteousness and fairness and rectitude we have that sense and we ought to have it before you start studying Torah the simplistic view that you're a blank slate and you come to religion and religion teaches you what's right and wrong is oversimplified the Torah requires you to come and start studying Torah with a sense of fairness and righteousness when you you study children you'll see they have an inflamed sense of what is right and fair you buy him a blue one and her a pink one that she wants the blue and he wants the pink you buy them both blue they want each others you know they have a very inflamed sense of what is right and fair and just and uh that is part of our nature I'll give you a more astounding example really astounding the Torah is full of people asserting their moral intuition against God against God I see some puzzled faces imagine you walk walk out here this evening and Hashem God Taps you on the shoulder right I mean if this happens to you you know see me you need therapy but you know but imagine and Hashem says to you um I'd like you to do me a favor and you say whatever you say he says tomorrow morning I'd like you to find some little kittens and torture them to death because I God tell you that that's good how what would you respond you'd say God if you say it's good it must be good would you I don't think so the Torah is full of people asserting their moral sense against Hashem example Hashem comes to abah Abraham and he says to him I've had enough of stone the sodomites are wicked I'm wiping them out and Abraham says to God shall the judge of all the world not do justice Abraham is accusing God of Injustice who are you arguing with how do you do such a thing this happens throughout the Torah and and God never pulls moral rank the correct answer is Abraham I'm God whatever I say is right by definition I'm the definition of right God never does that he says um let's talk about it uh let's negotiate Abraham didn't pray for stone he claim that God was being unjust on the basis of what I think it's unjust this is astounding by the way it's very interesting you know when Hashem said to Moshe to Moses I'm wiping out the Jewish people they've sinned Moshe said to Hashem you'd be immorally breaking a promise you promis the Jewish people the entire Jewish people the entire land of Israel if you kill us all in the desert you'd be breaking your promise that's immoral Amazing by the way the mag says that God responded as follows he said no I won't break my promise I'll kill the Jewish people I'll preserve you I'll reconstitute the Jewish people from you and I'll give that nation that the land of Israel without a moment's hesitation M turned to Hashem and he said that one solve the problem because you promised the entire land to the entire Jewish people that means all the 12 tribes if you reconstitute the Jewish people out of me I'm only the tribe of Ley you wouldn't be keeping a promise to give the the land to the whole Jewish people and the medress says that God was unable to answer that's the kind of attorney you want working for you by the way a year and two months later the same conversation recurred and M did not use the same card that he held in his hand he had a trump card in his hand a winning hand the spies came back on their faithful Mission they gave a bad report and Hashem said to Mo I'm killing the Jewish people and here Moses turned to God and he said to him Hashem you'd be breaking you'd be you'd be um you'd be people would say that you're not strong enough to take us into Israel they say you are Mighty enough to conquer the Egyptians but you cannot conquer Israel and you're not strong enough and people will discredit your strength and that's wrong don't do it and Hashem said well it's not as good an argument but okay and the question is why didn't he use the winning hand that he had before and and the answer is clear what was his winning argument you promised us the whole land of Israel he can't say that now when the spies have just rejected the land of Israel representing all 12 tribes they've just rejected the land you can't you can't offer that as an argument what a so he couldn't say that so he said people would say you're not Mighty enough but the Torah is full The Book of Job is full of this the Torah is full of human beings arguing against Hashem on the basis of their own moral sense this is amazing the medress is you know Abraham learned Torah from it from himself he came to it the ramam says that man was created to know good and evil from himself you responed to know what's right and wrong yes it can get badly distorted and you need Torah no question about that but you ought to have children need to be taught that they have a sense of righteousness and that needs to be developed don't tell a person you're a blank slate forget everything you know everything you know is wrong hear the rules become a robot and observe the rules is not right by the way man here has an even more astounding fact do you know that throughout the history of humankind West East ancient modern sophisticated primitive all human societies have always agreed on every single moral principle isn't that amazing in every single Human Society you may not kill I'm talking about single moral principles not for other reasons killing for no reason wrong stealing there's no Society where you can steal there are no amoral societies go to Papio New Guinea and steal steal the breakfast of the Savage next to you steal his lady he'll kill you not keeping a promise to somebody who's relying on you betraying them and letting them down when they're relying on you is immoral not showing gratitude to somebody who saved your life is immoral there's no argument about this the evolutionists have a very hard time trying to figure out how did all human beings evolve exactly the same moral ideology we know the reason we have it because we created butm we are a Divine projection we have the same value that he does we know what's right and wrong by the way be careful about this when moral values conflict there's no agreement I'm talking about single moral principles Can you steal for no reason CU you feel like it nobody says you can can you steal to Save a Life can you hurt one person to save many can you kill one to save many can you harm animals for humans no agreement at all a classic example can you torture one person let me ask you your opinion can you torture someone let's say there's a terrorist who's ploted a bomb someplace 50,000 people about to die if you torture him unbearably you'll find out where the bomb is raise your hand if you think we should torture him okay put your hands down raise your hand if you think it's not right to torture such a person very interesting very interesting I think C current modern American opinion is we ought not to have such things we ought not Alan duritz wrote a book a few years ago arguing that it would be moral to torture a person like that I think current opinion is that it would be wrong here's an example 15 years ago in Germany listen to this astounding example in Frankfurt 15 years ago a wealthy industrialist had a 10-year-old son being tutored by a 24-year-old University student it's not a Jewish not a Jewish family the child was kidnapped and a ransom was rece a ransom demand was received the chief of police in Frankfurt realized that the student was probably the culprit and he arrested him the student refused to disclose what he' done with the child the chief of police threatened to torture him he told him that he had people on his police force who could inflict unbearable pain on him that would leave no marks on his body under threat of torture he broke down and admitted that he'd killed the child and he told them where he was they'd found the body of the child in a Hut on a lake and he was convicted after the trial the chief of police was tried and convicted for using threat of torture I think he was given a two-year suspended sentence in Germany so the question about whether you can do one thing for others there's no human agreement the moralists the ethics ethicists say ethics has not yet had its newon we don't have an organizing principle but one value in isolation no disagreement okay let me tell you one or two solutions to this question because you didn't do well at all I will tell you first of all a non-jewish solution which is widely used and then I will tell you what the Kish the great Rabbi said about this case Philip autter self suggest we use the principle of double effect the doctrine of double effect this principle says and this is widely used in medicine I see see doctors here tonight in modern medical ethics we use this principle the principle roughly says if you have one action that has two effects for example I have a desperately ill patient who is suffering terribly I wish to give him a medication that will relieve his pain but it might stop him breathing and we got a double effect the same medicine by the way all medicines have two effects the ran says who was a doctor himself he says what heals some kills others and every doctor knows that even the simplest intervention can have disastrous side effects but we say it's moral because you are looking for the first effect the pain relief not the second effect which is the death you hear this so two effects under certain very tightly controlled conditions you can do something that has a double effect but to do something with double effect you need the following conditions listen well to do something like kill someone under the title of doal effect you need four criteria one the ACT you are doing must not be evil the ACT you are doing the immediate act must be neutral or good two the death that will occur the disastrous effect that will occur must be something that you do not want it's just an unfortunately foreseen effect but you don't want it not as a means nor as an end three there must be no other way out of this dilemma and four the calculation must be worthwhile five against one nobody would do this for five against five let's apply the principle you deflect a train from one track to another is that a bad act or a neutral act neutral anybody tell me that it's a negative act a bad act any office negative why you're because there's a man on the track okay I would concede that point I think this point is arguable I'm glad that you all responded most of you that it's a neutral act most philosophers who deal with us say that the our verion of the train is not is not evil but I think you could argue that point but let's go to the second point the death of the man on the Sidetrack the the train hitting this man and killing him is it something you want not at all you want it you do not want it as a means or an end let's look at this case is pushing a man off a bridge onto a track in front of a train neutral or evil Bad act secondly do you want the train to hit him and kill him absolutely you need it that's what's going to save the five people do you see that in this case you don't want the train to hit the man it's just a sign effect in this case you need the train to hit the man that's what stops the train do you see that I see some dubious faces I will prove it to you I will prove to you that in this case you do not want the train to hit this man at all and in this case you very much want the train to hit the man ready imagine you deflect the train but just before it gets to this man he jumps up and runs away would you be happy you'd be thrilled in this case you push him onto the track just before the train hits him he runs away would you be happy you'd be devastated five people going to die right do do you see that point yeah okay so why didn't you say so so this is a very clear distinction I don't think this is jewishly correct and I'll try to show you but it is a very cogent intellectual uh distinction between the cases let me tell you what the Kish said about this case Kish the great Rabbi head of Torah jury died in 1954 he was faced with exactly the same question what happened was there was a person driving his car down the caramel mountain in Kaa have you been a very steep Mountain this was a a car actually I think it was a truck was coming down the the mountain and the brakes failed actually this was an Israeli car the brakes had never been used before they just use the horn you know um anyway he was coming down the mountain his brakes failed and he found himself kening towards a bus stop in which 10 people were standing okay out of control not his fault he checked the car perfectly responsible doing everything he ought to but he had no breaks he was about to kill the car was about to run down 10 people he could turn but unfortunately only to a place where one person was standing very similar to this except he was the driver okay which is why I told you gets a little bit more difficult but that was the scenario I don't know what the man did but they asked the Kish afterwards Rabbi what should he have done and K said I think he should have turned and killed the bystander and if you'd like to look the up he writes this in his in his as a lengthy analysis which is remarkable to go through and he comes to the conclusion that the person he says I think he doesn't come to a firm conclusion I think he should turn the car and kill the person on the side people challenged the Kish they said Rabbi that disagrees with the rambam the rambam says that you may not kill one person to save manyy so how come you can kill the bystander to save manyy the r writes that in fact he brings the gim that says that when we are let's say surrounded by terrorists and they say give us one Jew to kill or we'll kill everyone or one woman to molest or we'll molest them all but let's let's stay with murder and unfortunately this has happened many times in Jewish history during the war this was a constant give us one Jee to kill or we'll kill you all the logic is of course you should give one if you don't give one everybody's going to die including the one you would have given the rambam brings and there's no argument about this in Jewish law we cannot kill one person to save many many of our commentaries say the reason is because we cannot make the choice who are we to say it should be you or you or you so we say it's your problem even if we all die we may not kill anyone what's not so clear of course is if they name the person they want we want fle Mich here's our problem this is different why we're not making the choice fle mic is a dead man why should we all die as well here there's an argument in the Jerusalem talet I don't want to keep you late I'll just tell you very brief ly the Yi in the eth peric of tumus discusses this question the says well we can learn this from the historical case of sh sh was a man who attacked King David what's the Jewish punishment for attacking the king immediate death he managed to escape and he hid in the town of ail David's Army led by yav the general surrounded the town and yav gave the town's people that ultimatum he said to them if you don't give me sh I'll kill you all and what happened was a very old woman woman called sakas climbed up on the ramparts and she began debating the case with yav she prevailed on the town's people to kill him they threw his head over the wall she saved the whole city the tman says you see from this case that you could kill one person to save many if he's named that's called was named stipulated specified and because he was named they were able to kill him what's obviously wrong with this proof what's the problem with this proof he was guilty he deserved to be killed so the T debates that point one opinion is they killed him because he was designated the second opinion is they killed him because he was designated and guilty the first opinion says no they killed him because he was designated he just happened to be guilty too but it's not needed the second opinion says how can you prove him this case he was guilty the answer is because we learned in the B that the reason you cannot kill someone is because you cannot make the choice but here the choice has been made you could kill him do you see the debate We Rule like the rambam who rules that you may not kill the person unless he's named and guilty but it's an unresolved issue but let's take the basic law the basic law is you cannot kill one person can you volunteer can you give yourself to be killed to save a community yes you can the tomet has an amazing case when the Romans occupied Israel a Roman girl was found killed the Roman Governor accused the Jewish community of lud of having killed her he said unless you give me the the culprits I'll kill you all and two Jewish Brothers innocent Brothers called papus and lulanis they went to the Roman and they said we killed her and he killed them and they saved the whole city the Tolman says they guaranteed a place in the world to come some opinions are that the Roman knew they were lying but he made his offer and so he killed him yes you could give your life to save many I'm not talking about war time do you remember the young Israeli Sergeant who lay down on on a hand grenade recently to save to save his his uh people he was responsible for that is correct and wartime also has different rules but the bottom line is you cannot give a person to save many people so they said Rabbi why do you say that the man should divert his car and kill this bystander to save the people in front of you the ramam says you cannot kill one to save many do do you see the problem let me say it very clearly these are two parallel situations number one my car is heading towards 10 people if I do nothing 10 people die said the rabbi turn and kill an innocent person on the side number two 10 people in front of me terrorists about to kill them if I do nothing 10 people die they give me a gun TS take this gun shoot that innocent bystander on the side kill him we save 10 people may I do that no way what's the difference between a car and a gun see the problem one's what excuse me in both cases they're totally in my control in both cases I do nothing 10 people die or I murder one on the side exactly the same the car's out of control I do nothing with a car yes you're doing exactly what I told you you're not allowed to do I'm yes yes yes happen let me rephrase the case for you let me rephrase the case my car is going towards 10 people who are guaranteed to die that's the case I turn the car to the side I'm guaranteed to run down the individual hey I'm making up the cases not you that's the case terrorists they guaranteed to kill I want the principal here not the Practical difference do you get it okay in those circumstances no variables and Mayes what's the difference in principle again in learning we looking for I'm running him down with my car deliberately or I'm shooting with a gun deliberately what are they give me a gun they say tats shoot that guy in the head and we save 10 people said the Kish no run him down with your car and kill him again again let's be clear if I do nothing 10 people die through no action of mine either the car kills him or the terrorists kill him I turn to the side and kill one deliberately with a car or a gun it's exactly the same listen to what the k said Yes again again again I told you the variables are guaranteed you can't cheat like that the terrorists are guaranteed to kill 10 the car is guaranteed to kill 10 I turn to the side I'm guaranteed to kill one I don't want practical differences I want a principal gu but I just told you I've guaranteed you you are being very difficult yeah oh um maybe let me tell you what he said the Kish listen well K said when you turn to the side with a gun and kill somebody that's an act of murder would you agree the toad do not allow murder to for good reasons when you turn your car away from people in the street that's an act of saving people let me tell you his language they give you a gun and say shoot that individual on the side he says it's a a cruel Act of murder you're driving your car towards 10 people and you turn away it's an act of saving for that reason says the Kish I'm not sure he says this listen what he says when I turn my car away from 10 people in the street because it's towards one person which is an act of death I remain unsure but it's very different from an act of murder let me make you a little bit happy I'll I'll make it even clearer for you 10 people in front of me I even clearer 10 people in the street no one else around just before I get to them I can turn aside should I turn of course okay 10 people in front of me if I turn as hard as I can I just hit one of them should I turn okay 10 people in front of me if I turn hard I miss them all but hit one on the side should I do that why not okay however I'm a doctor in the hospital I have five people in organ failure they badly need transplants transplants and um they're about to die the nurse walks in and she says Doctor there's a young man in the waiting room he's come to see his mother let's grab him cut his throat take five organs save five lives raise your hand why we killing one to save money says the Kish an act of murder in order to save people that t doesn't allow that's what the R's talking about but an act of Salvation which is what you ought to be doing even if it kills one is possibly acceptable okay do this principle of the kazes agree with double effect I don't think so and if you'd like a black belt question but for this you have to sit on the edge of your seat and think I will show you a case that I think distinguishes them in practice ready what would happen if the track looked like this get it can you see down there can't you see the point everybody the track backs up okay the track you'll have to move come come maybe walk back there where you can see if the track Loops back here let me ask you according to double effect could you turn the train what does double effect say you don't want the person to be hit at all under these circumstances could you divert the train why you need him to be hit because this guy is going to stop the train if he jumps up the train will back up and kill the five people you see that if this is the case I think double effect would Clearly say you may not do it the Kish I think might say you could because this I think is still an act of diversion from the five people okay I wouldn't be stubborn about that I might be wrong but I think that might just be a difference between them anyway this is these are some fascinating scenarios I've already taken more time than I should you have a question what about that yes yes yes yes what do what do you think According to which principle again double effect certainly not cuz it's an evil act that you want to death according to the Kish you can't do an act of murder to save people definitely EXA one oh I see forcibly take one that's an interesting question that is an interesting question but that attack on a person okay that that is certainly an evil act and again again again again again you're attacking his body and injuring him which is clearly an evil act and you clearly want that damage it's not a death that's true and you're doing it to Save a Life that's true no thinkers agreed that you could do that okay certainly not the Kish andly you certainly cannot do that it's even debatable about whether you may steal to Save a Life in Jewish law know that very interesting let me leave you with one thought one thought there are other systems that have been used to resolve these issues and for lack of time I'll just mention one and that is known as utilitarianism this Theory says that all this logic fancy logic is completely wrong just look at the numbers the principle says the greatest good for the greatest number five against one kill him and according to your question no doubt about it grab the person take his kidneys because you're saving especially if you could save two people with one death and there there are many thinkers well two kidneys kill one utilitarians might even say that you could frame an innocent person and kill him if it will stop more deaths in society as an example which is heinous but it's one against many this is serious to be considered no one has ever this has never become an acceptable Theory let me just share with you one insight and I'll finish with this sorry communist Society um I don't think they say you could kill one for many I don't know about that but anyway utilitarianism was authored by a couple of famous uh figures one of them by the way was a man called Jeremy Bentham who lived more than 100 years ago in England and if you'd like to visit him you can visit him Jeremy bentham's body is pres preserved in a glass case at University College London you know the English are a little eccentric and um he left instructions in his will before died that he wants to be preserved in a glass case and wheeled out to every Senate meeting of the university and there he is when I go lectured to the medical students I visit him I pay my respects his preserved body sits in a glass case at the entrance hall to UCL his head is wax and the real head is in a box on the side which is locked up because the king's college students used to steal it so the head is on the side they bring the head to every Senate meeting they put it on the table and he registered as present but not voting but now I'm not kidding you you probably think I am but I'm not kidding you by the way before I moved to England I knew that benam was there why because in a famous book of respons of one of the diony of the London Bas in Dian grossness he was sent a question by a young student some years ago who said I study at UCL and I'm a Cohen can I walk through that room I'm a Coen there's a dead body in the room and the Dian answers he very interesting he says you may not have contact with the dead body je or non-jewish but to be in an oil a space with a with a body that has to be a Jewish body to prevent your being there there's no problem with this however on second thoughts this may be bentham's grave and a coin may have no contact with a grave this is his grave he's permanently interred here walk around if you can anyway amazing thing benam said that you should look only at the numbers this is a brilliantly simple system and it has never been accepted and the reason is according to most theorists because it does not feel right even though the logic is one against many we just know it's wrong I give you an example given by Professor Williams at Cambridge he says this imagine you backpacking in South America and you stumble into a little village high in the Peruvian Andes and as you stumble into the Village Square you see 20 men lined up against the wall about to be shot but just before they shoot them they notice you hey welcome Americano whatever you are visitor bring you in they say in honor of Il presidente's birthday day we're going to give you a gun shoot one of these men and you save 19 lives and they s there singing in Spanish and throwing their Sombreros in there and waiting for you to shoot one of them raise your hand if you'd shoot one you would wouldn't you no you wouldn't nobody you're saving 19 people we just feel that it's wrong and therefore feel or know that it's wrong and therefore this is a reason why utilitarianism although it's perfect logical has never been accepted the bottom line Takeo message is to I leave you with we are not blank slates Rob robotically operating according to rules we are human beings with a deep sense of what's right and we need to develop that Toro is meant to correct that align it and develop it by the way I promise you I'll finish with this this is becoming an everyday reality I was driven last week on Friday from P to New York in a self-driving car my host took his hands off the wheel and his feet of the pedals and the car drove itself now the problem with these cars is they've been programmed to make choices if your car is driving along the edge of a cliff and a child runs out into the street or 10 people appear on the road the computer programmers have told the car what to do kill 10 people or drive off the cliff and kill you those are built into the programs not only that they know that if they program the car to kill you people won't buy them so these are now theic respon are being written about this and there been there's been a consensus of what we ought to do by the way the agreement is very interesting the agreement is we know cars like this will kill people it's already happened we know people will die we'll accept it willingly you know why CU much fewer people will die than due to human error Society will save thousands of lives by cars that kill people very seldom and therefore it's worthwhile but how you program the cars not being agreed I promise you I'll finish with this one example is this here in L in London I live in England now 1944 in London imagine a map of London V bombs were raining in the V2 bombs were coming in from France tens of thousands of people died is that to remind me to finish yeah okay one more minute the bombs were aimed at Westminster in the center of London heavily populated but the German's aim was not good they didn't have GPS and satellites and the bombs were falling mainly in C Southwest London lightly populated area and that's where the bombs were falling the Rockets the Germans desperately needed to know where their Rockets were falling and so they had two secret agents in London radioing them information about where the Rockets were falling one was called Garbo one was called zigzag fascinating history so I'm not going to go into now these two men were radioing the Germans where the bombs were falling unknown to the Germans they were British agents they belonged to an operation called double cross and they were telling the Germans where the bombs are falling Churchill instructed them to tell the Germans that the aim was accurate Churchill very much wanted to be sure that the Rockets would fall in craden where much fewer people lived and avoid Westminster one of the members on Churchill's cabinet I think his name was Harris he was a working-class man who worked himself up he accused Churchill of murdering people in codin you understand and Churchill said I'm saving people in Westminster this is an application of our principle do you know how the argument was settled there was another cabinet minister who told who argued forcibly and swayed the decision in favor of the rockets falling in Cen he argued it was correct to do that and his own parents lived in Katon and when they said to him how can you do that he said Mom and Dad would have wanted it that way okay and anyway this happens all the time when the Americans killed 74,000 people in Nagasaki Hiroshima they said we're not killing civilians we're saving many more from an atrocious War anyway I leave you with this thought these are everyday issues we have a deep sense deep knowledge of what to do here and the aim of Torah here is not to squash your innate sense of spirituality but to develop it and bring it to its Perfection thank you [Applause] [Music]