Human Dignity and Bioethics

400 | David Gelernter
Testament.) Practicing Jews don’t consult the Talmud to learn their
duties; they consult their rabbis or more recent legal writings that are
ultimately based on the Talmud. But that is a detail. It’s enough to
say that observant Jews, although they are only a small minority of all
Jews (who are a small enough minority themselves, God knows), are
rigorous in keeping the commandments; and the Talmud provides a
detailed guide to how these commandments are to be obeyed.
A Talmudic passage: “As to him who has nothing but refuses to
take [charity], let him first be asked to give a pledge and let him then
be asked to take, so that his mind will be cheered” (Ketuvot 67b).
At first, the passage seems strongly in keeping with “inalienable
rights” and human dignity. Everyone has a right to sustenance, delivered
in a way that doesn’t compromise his self-respect. The rabbinic
tradition is obsessed with giving charity and with giving it in the
right way: “He who gives charity in secret [anonymously] is greater
than Moses” (Baba Basra 9b). In a famous passage, Maimonides lists
eight degrees of charity, where the greatest consists of giving someone
a job, setting him up in business, or otherwise making him selfsupporting.
But the charity-case in this passage has refused to take charity.
He’d rather starve than be a public burden.
How could the Talmud’s instructions be re-phrased in the language
of rights? “The poor have a right to refuse charity, and then to
be approached by someone who suggests that what is actually charity
should be treated as a loan against collateral”? A strange-sounding
right. We can fine-tune a duty more accurately and with greater subtlety
than a right—because we are addressing those who will actively
deliver, not those who will passively receive. (I can tell you how to
throw a curve ball but not how to have one thrown at you.)
And notice that to approach a situation in terms of rights drains
away all ethical content. “You have a right to be supported if you can’t
support yourself; you have a right to be supported in such-and-such a
way.” No good deeds or ethical achievements are contemplated.
(The Talmud’s instructions are based—arguably—on something
like “human dignity”—but is human dignity a strong enough idea to
justify this sort of aggressive help? When you give charity tactfully,
you show respect for human dignity. When you help a man who has
refused charity, it’s arguable that your motivation is human sanctity.)