|
|
No civilised society should tolerate Judaism because of Kosher butchering. If your child was to die, and you knew this and accepted it because he had done some great wrong, but you would speak out against him being killed by the horrible torture of being cut at the neck and drowning in his own blood anyway, then you know how wrong Kosher butchering is. The pressure change from sudden blood loss is supposed to cause unconsciousness, especially in larger animals and especially when the head is elevated. But it doesn't always.
However, I don't see what the Rabbis in the story of Eliezer did wrong. Anyone who thinks abortion is actually murder and doesn't blow up Planned Parenthood agrees with the Rabbis and not Rabbi Eliezer. Most of us do, we just don't cognise it.
Every person has in his own head an ideal of good, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no two people's "head canon" of what good actually is would be alike.
Some common laws are necessary to live in society and someone or someones do have to be responsible for determining right and wrong at a societal level. And you do have to follow that unless society is very obviously completely evil, and although I hate to break it to you, an oven or even abortions don't really qualify (at least, not in my thinking).
Abortions were only recently legalised in Ireland but if that hadn't been the case, a good solution for anyone whose hot button was abortions would be to move to Ireland, not blow up Planned Parenthood. People should have a place for their survival strategy to be tested cleanly (that is, without the potential parasitism of other, competing survival strategies). Most of us can see that tolerating a competing survival strategy where murder is allowed would be ruinous to those who think they should not murder, and most of us can see that despite which group would outcompete the other, the strategy of "don't murder, murder should be punished until its Expected Value is negative" builds the superior society.
The problem with listening to the booming voice and not the law is that it's sort of a cheat. I don't have a direct line to God; I can't pick up my glowing white phone and get an answer to whether my head canon about good is right or wrong. It could be wrong, so I follow the law, and then I put myself in God's shoes and (assuming I'm being fair) I realise that I can't punish people who had no way to know whether something was "technically murder" so they deferred to those who were presumed to be wise instead of choosing the totally non-universalisable option and choosing violence every time my instinct disagrees with somebody and calling it righteous. Imagine if everyone did that.
I hope that God would also decide not to punish the guy who buys one of those ovens... but again I put myself in God's shoes. That guy making and selling those forbidden ovens is profiting at the expense of everyone who submitted to the law, which I have to think everyone ought to do, or there would be chaos. He may become like a drug dealer, bringing violence and strife to his community. While he's technically right that there was nothing wrong with those ovens, he hurt people, and depending on how far it went, he may have even killed people. As God, I might expect him to judge the community, the safety, and the lives of others to be more valuable than his damn oven business, which is only so profitable because everyone else is choosing those other things, and he knows so.
There's a reason the Rabbis asserted their authority on Earth over the authority of Heaven and I totally agree with it.
|
Locked
