Political interaction among citizens who hold opposing moral views commonly requires reaching beyond toleration, toward actual co‐operation with policies one opposes. On the more personal level, however, regarding (e.g.) interactions between healthcare providers and patients, several authors emphasise the importance of preserving integrity. But those who oppose any ‘complicity in evil’ often wrongly conflate instances in which the other's position is (and should be) totally rejected with instances of legitimate, although deep, disagreement. Starting with a striking example from the context (...) of a particular tradition, I argue generally that in the latter sort of disagreements, talk of ‘complicity’ should be largely replaced with a more co‐operative moral stance, grounded in a pluralistic framework. Co‐operation Despite Disagreement (CDD) should be sought either for institutional reasons – akin to the political – or for relational reasons. CDD involves sharing another's perspective and sometimes calls for adopting another's moral judgements in preference to one's own. I seek to identify some of the conditions and circumstances that would justify such a shift, particularly in scenarios involving assistance, such as physician‐assisted suicide (PAS) or the role of an anaesthesiologist in abortion. This discussion is meant to provide examples of the kind of second‐order reasons appropriate for determining the terms for CDD – in distinction from first‐order considerations (e.g., the much‐contested ‘active/passive’ distinction) which are likely to be the subject of the initial disagreement and hence cannot serve to resolve it. (shrink)

Can anyone doubt that the Jewish tradition mandates universal access to healthcare? In a comprehensive and illuminating discussion, A.L. Mackler seems to have already said all that needs to be said. After aptly analyzing the principles of the traditional institutions and norms relating to tzedakah, Mackler proceeded to apply these traditions to the context of healthcare, concluding that.

_The third of four volumes in a distinguished series, this volume includes chapters on the nature of the communal bond, marriage and family, welfare, taxation, government, and criminal justice_ The four-volume series on the Jewish political tradition that includes this volume seeks to connect the political thought of ancient Israel and the Diaspora with the emerging traditions of the modern Israeli state. The first two volumes dealt with authority and membership, respectively; this third volume, with Madeline Kochen as coeditor, deals (...) with community, with chapters on the communal bond, marriage and family, welfare, taxation, government, and criminal justice. (shrink)

Zohar applies Talmudic views on communal sin to contemporary political discourse by posing the question "Are we our brothers' keepers?" The essay addresses international responsibility to protect victims of oppression worldwide.

The ArgumentTo describe the attitude of the Jewish tradition toward eugenic ideology and policies, it is necessary to examine classical sources from a contemporary perspective. In the heyday of eugenics, Rabbi Max Reichler (1916) enthusiastically endorsed its ideology, supporting his position with numerous traditional texts. Similar views of traditional teachings on “chosen people” and on the importance of lineage have a certain contemporary following as well. The paper argues, however, that these views involve a one-sided reading of the Jewish tradition (...) and, particularly, the suppression of traditional critiques of lineage and of the notion of a “Jewish race.”. (shrink)

The religious legitimacy of medical practice was an issue of serious contention amongst medieval Jewish scholars. For Nahmanides, altering the patient's fate through manipulation of natural causality amounts to circumventing divine judgment. For Maimonides, however, human accomplishment is part of God's providential design; this view generally prevails in contemporary Jewish bioethics. But the doctrine of deligitimizing human intervention continues, even while unacknowledged, to underlie certain contemporary positions. These include arguments within Jewish bioethics about end-of-life decisions, which are therefore imbued with (...) inconsistencies. It is suggested that, given the overall endorsement of modern medicine, the Nahmanidean approach must be explicitly confronted. Keywords: euthanasia, Jewish bioethics, Nahmanides, naturalism, nature, Maimonides, providence CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)