(15 second clip)
As evidenced by the clip C. Montgomery Burns has some sort of religious comp time plan. (Or at least some sensitivity to the issue of taking off for Shabbos). My office is pretty cool about taking Shabbos & Yom Tov off too. But, what are the ethics of asking for (demanding, really) special treatment when you don't necessarily believe it is required?
When I ask for religious days off (I try to avoid using the word "holidays" because I think "holiday" implies fun/partying) sometimes I'm not asking for anything unreasonable but at some point I'm basically asking for special treatment. For example:
LNM: Hey boss, can I take time off for Rosh HaShana?Like the Jewish guy in the clip there is also the issue of leaving-early-on-Friday-in-the-Winter. Arranging to leave early every. single. Friday. for months is requesting special treatment.
Boss: Sure.
LNM: Yom Kippur?
Boss: No problem.
LNM: Sukkot?
Boss: Huh?
LNM: Shmini Atzeret?
Boss: You're kidding, right?
My basic question is: Is it wrong to ask for something you don't believe you need?
Certainly, if your job gives you vacation days you have the right to use them. Also, when you take a job it is reasonable to make an agreement with your boss to whatever terms you can agree on.
But, when you ask for religious time off every Friday for an entire season (Winter), or ask to take two days of vacation every week for the entire month of October, you begin to push the bounds of what's reasonable.
Asking for religious days off is not just a matter of scheduling. When the requests become special requests I'm not just asking for the time, I am also asking my boss to be sympathetic to my practices. Chances are I'm probably playing into his/her own connection to god and religion. If I don't believe I am required to observe Shabbos & Yom Tov, but I ask my boss for the time off as if I do, does this constitute genavas daas (deception/obtaining a favor falsely)?
Is it ethical for an atheist, or orthopraxer, to ask for special treatment when taking religious days off?
30 comments:
I think about this all the time. At my most observant, I'm 95% Orthoprax (i.e., occasionally, about 5% of me believes that what OJ demands of me, I am actually required to do. Stress on occasionally.)
On the one hand, if I'm not "out" about my skepticism, I can't very well go to work on Jewish holidays. And there's a real (irrational, maybe) part of me that would feel strange doing so regardless of what anyone thought.
At the same time, it does feel deceptive to all but demand these days off as a necessity.
Yeah, this issues is THE perfect illustration of why its so impossible to be on the fence.
There is nothing wrong with you asking for time off. You are Jewish and don't require an explanation as to why you observe something. Suppose you lived in Israel in a place where some feel that that area in Israel has to observe two days of Yom Tov and so you were raised to observe the second day there. Even if you later decide that really you don't have to observe the second day anywhere in Israel you live in, you still have every right to continue your family custom, just because. So the same goes for your situation. You are Jewish. That’s excuse enough.
I loved that clip!
Anyhow, see my Al Cheit post, the section on other sins.
http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-chait-shechatanu.html
you don't make up the hours/days? Most orthodox people I know make up those hours using a flex-time type of arrangement, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Lots of people use flex time for various reasons, including people who come in earlier because they have to leave early to pick up their kids, etc. It's when you are getting extra vacation time compared to your coworkers, and not making up those hours, that I feel it begins to become unethical. Also if you are getting flex time, but, say, that mother who needs to leave early to pick up a kid is not.
On the other hand, you are PRAX, so ti's not like you can work those hours without practicing anymore.
"If I don't believe I am required to observe Shabbos & Yom Tov, but I ask my boss for the time off as if I do, does this constitute genavas daas (deception/obtaining a favor falsely)?"
The concept of a religious obligation doesn't need to literally mean that it is a command from God. You can honestly say that you're taking off for religious reasons.
As long as you give back your fair share then there's nothing unethical here.
It's unethical to ask for time if you don't need it, of course. That's a no brainer. But for you, since your wife is involved in the decision, it's not something you need to feel guilty about.
I agree with Candyman. It is not like you take off because you want to. You must take off for religious purposes although your heart is not where your religion lies.
Yes, it is unethical to ask for time off that you don't actually believe you need.
Even id you did think you needed the time off, there's a halchic argument to be made along the lines of "Im ein kemach, ein torah..."
I'm wit Da Candy Man
I think for an atheist\agnostic\secularist "unethical" means simply "illegal" and there isn't anything illegal as far as I know about pretending you are Jewish if you are not.
the premise of the question makes no sense to me. along the lines of JP, what ehtical boundries is an athiest bound by? to even bring up gnaivas daas seems rediculous. why cant one lie? who says you cant?
to put in perspective, I used to work at hospital with a Jewish name. I was in the union. I requested to take a week off for Passover. I was denied this request because someone more senior who is non Jewish also requested that week and thus I was denied. When I met with the director, also non Jewish, He asked me "if I can change my Passover vacation". I said "Are you denying my request?". He said "Yes". I said "Put in writing".
In the end I had to rearrange my schedule just to get the days off for seder...
bankman,
> what ehtical boundries is an athiest bound by? to even bring up gnaivas daas seems rediculous.
Are you arguing that human beings are immoral creatures by nature, and that they have no innate sense of morality or fairness, and the only thing that could possibly keep man from falling into a state of total anarchy is a book of rules handed down by god?
I hope not, because the idea is absurd.
If someone proved to you that the Torah is false I highly doubt you would feel it was suddenly OK to kill people. Your morality isn't only based on what you are taught in Yeshiva (at least I hope it isn't).
"What ethical boundaries is an atheist bound by?" At the very least an atheist is bound by their own internal sense of morality and fairness. Where that comes from is up for debate but you can't deny that it exists.
There are also moral ideas that are thought up by man. If you need an example just pick your favorite amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Personally, I like Hillel's version of the golden rule: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." I think gnaivas daas is a variant of this concept.
Do I have to follow it? No. But I learned about the idea, it feels like a true and moral concept to me, I sense it is an appropriate way to conduct myself, and I feel guilty if I intentionally deceive people. This has nothing to do with god or Torah.
As for the use of the term "genavas daas":
I used it because most of the readers here went to cheder/yeshiva/seminary and we all grok the concept. I'm not using it to imply that I should follow it because I am commanded to do so by god. I hope that clears it up for you.
Everyone has their own standards for work ethics. If you think it's unethical then you should stop asking for the time off. If you do that though, you're wife will have proof of what she probably is already pretty sure of... that you're heart isn't really in orthodox judaism anymore. I really don't think you're worried about the ethics though. I think you realize what I just wrote above and you think this might be the easiest way to "break the news" to your wife.
Jessica,
The wife knows what I think. I "broke that news" a long time ago. Like TheCandyMan said, my wife is involved in the decision and that's why I don't have a huge issue with asking for the time. I feel justified in making the request.
For the most part my concern is that I'm misrepresenting the reasons for why I'm asking. That might be a technicality, but it's a technicality I feel a little bad about.
LubabNM - i hear you. been down that road many times and i still struggle with the reasoning. but, I find it curious that this is such an ethical issue on the level of murder as you compared. of course man made ethics to believers sounds silly....everyone has their own set of rules based on their own experiences and "inate sense of morality and fairness"....that has proven to be disasterous. it's gotta come from somewhere - not just inate senses.
"At the very least an atheist is bound by their own internal sense of morality and fairness. Where that comes from is up for debate but you can't deny that it exists."
But if it's contents and its obligatory nature has no reality that can be seen by the senses then if the reason you are an atheist is that you do not believe in what your senses cannot confirm then it is all an illusion. You may have feelings that you do not wish something to be done but that doesn't mean it can't. I have a higher personal code of conduct than I feel has to be observed. Certain things I do not do and feel uncomfortable to do even though technically I feel I could and would not judge others for doing it. We recognize a concept called morality but the details are lacking if one expects some objective standard lying in our heads independent of society. Dawkins knows this and so is hardpressed to talk of morality as an objective entity. He can speak of freedom and public policy but morality as some abstract independent concept is hard for him.
1. gnaivas daas is a halachic issue and according to halacha you are obligated to observe Shabbos and Yomim Tovim so that's not an issue.
2. Atheistic morality is highly subjective, so that's up to you. Let's say it is "unethical," so what?
You gotta do what you gotta do.
bankman,
> I find it curious that this is such an ethical issue on the level of murder as you compared.
If morality is meaningless to atheists then there shouldn't be any difference between lying and killing. (They're both just actions!) But there IS some innate sense of right and wrong that allows you to make that difference. This is exactly my point.
"Do not kill" and "Observe Shabbos" are both in the 10 commandments. According to halacha failure to observe either is punishable by death. It would appear that according to the Torah there is no difference between the two. BUT, you know there is a difference, and you didn't make that distinction because the Torah said you should. There is something internal to you that says murder is a horrible thing and should be punished severely. And at the same time your internal voice says violating Shabbos is not something that merits punishment in the same way that murder does.
> of course man made ethics to believers sounds silly... that has proven to be disasterous. it's gotta come from somewhere - not just inate senses.
Again, I direct you to the U.S. Bill of Rights (and the related Magna Carta while we're at it). The United States has hardly been a disaster. Quite the opposite in fact.
Do you believe that every value that you hold is moral, or immoral, comes from the Torah?
SDR,
> Atheistic morality is highly subjective, so that's up to you.
I don't agree with you that "atheistic morality is highly subjective". That seems to imply that every atheist does what he/she wants. If anything I would say most atheists follow the axiom "Live and let live".
> Let's say it is "unethical," so what? You gotta do what you gotta do.
That doesn't make whatever (small amount of) guilt I feel go away. Like I've said before I think Hillel got it right with "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." I don't like the idea of being deceitful. I'm not saying I never lie. I'm just saying I (usually) feel bad when I do.
LNM, really? wow. I didn't realize at all. I thought based on a previous post that you still hadn't said anything. Congratulations! I know, sounds weird coming from an orthodox Jew, but really, I mean it.
LNM,
Great work!
Just to add a bit to the conversation... I've been researching morality for the past couple of weeks and here is what I've figured out thus far.
Morality is based on human instinct. It's every bit as much a part of humanness as eating, drinking, and having sex. It's basis is the natural, evolutionary outcome of our genetic makeup.
However it doesn't stop there. That is just the basis. There is nature and there is nurture. We are also conditioned by our environment, which includes our parents upbringing, education, personal experiences and social pressures. All this and more is what is controlling the moral zeitgeist to continue to improve as time marches on.
Now there are fundamental principles that we have figured out in the process and some would argue that there are moral facts, such as Murder, theft, rape, and other crimes with a victim are factually wrong. I cannot explain this philosophically as yet, I'm working on it.
I hope this was of help to explain, oh so minimally, non-religious morality.
Fedup. See, this is what I struggle with. Let's say a child was born in a vaccum, never left a bubble, never saw another soul for 20 years. Now, eating drinking, sex - yea, he'd be all over that - but once he's let out into the world, how is this little dude supposed to know that he can't take something that belongs to someone else, or kill someone if he wants their woman. These morals come from somewhere - they are not inate.
Let's say a child was born in a vaccum, never left a bubble, never saw another soul for 20 years.
Such a child would probably be totally void of modern morality. However, that is a theoretical case that does not describe reality. So I answer with these two key statements from my previous comment.
"It's basis is the natural, evolutionary outcome of our genetic makeup." This includes the moral evolutionary process that is unique to humans as social animals.
"We are also conditioned by our environment, which includes our parents upbringing, education, personal experiences and social pressures."
Someone born in a vaccuum will not have those two key elements which are unique to humans. Morality is something that has evolved. It took the human species a long time to develop this highly sophisticated instinct of morality. Ancient man had no qualms in committing that which now seems as absolutely barbaric. Eventually we figured out that's no way to live. We've developed a sense of empathy and realized the logic of the golden rule.
Morality is not directly connected to survival in a vacuum rather directly to survival as a social species. No man is an island.
“If morality is meaningless to atheists then there shouldn't be any difference between lying and killing. (They're both just actions!) But there IS some innate sense of right and wrong that allows you to make that difference. This is exactly my point.”
And yet we kill in war not just for self defense but if another nation would violate our borders we would use force to enforce our law. Police use force even to the point of killing to enforce law even if all you would do would be to try to escape peacefully their grip from some nonviolent crime made a crime by the force of law in your country or area and not in others.
Why is stealing wrong? Just because you say something belongs to you? Why do you claim that? We use violence to protect our property and money or gold even if there would be no violence on the part of the thief but the thief is just a pocketer running away.
There is no place in the brain telling all something is right or wrong but rather there is individual temperament and environment and ideas. In any event even if we would all have the same sense why should we listen if all that exists is just some sense? Where does the obligation to obey that sense exist?
"Morality is based on human instinct. It's every bit as much a part of humanness as eating, drinking, and having sex. It's basis is the natural, evolutionary outcome of our genetic makeup."
What are selfishness, greed, hate and envy, Alien instincts? In any event so you claim some moral rules are built into our system by Evolution. How does that obligate us? If we are compelled to behave that way there is no choice and it is neither goodness nor evil. If we have a choice what is obligating us?
"Now there are fundamental principles that we have figured out in the process and some would argue that there are moral facts, such as Murder, theft, rape, and other crimes with a victim are factually wrong."
What do you mean figured out. If it is just Evolution there is nothing figured out it is just evolved into a behavior neither inherently right or wrong.
"However it doesn't stop there. That is just the basis. There is nature and there is nurture. We are also conditioned by our environment, which includes our parents upbringing, education, personal experiences and social pressures. All this and more is what is controlling the moral zeitgeist to continue to improve as time marches on."
Improve to what if it morality has a reality from Evolution and not an independent reality? What makes one Evolutionary outcome better than another if all Evolution can do is make what survives be reinforced? Would an intelligent black widow spider avoid eating her mate if eating mates is what has always worked for them?
"Such a child would probably be totally void of modern morality."
I'm unconvinced. Sure, such a child would lack an understanding of the nuances of property rights or the right to privacy. But many of the underlying foundations appear to be innate. For example:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-03-02-toddler-altruism_x.htm.
>"Such a child would probably be totally void of modern morality."
The end product of all of us is Nature & Nurture (Genotype & Phenotype). The same child without modern morals will also be without language. It's the capacity for morals that's innate.
Baal Devarim,
Thanks for the link!
Baal Habos,
Right, with emphasis on the word, capacity. I specifically used modern morality. But morality is probably closer to language then eating and drinking. My point was that it's an instinct.
"Baal Devarim said...
"Such a child would probably be totally void of modern morality."
I'm unconvinced. Sure, such a child would lack an understanding of the nuances of property rights or the right to privacy. But many of the underlying foundations appear to be innate."
If a child is raised away from society it is going to be stunted in emotional and mental growth so there is no real use in making claims of thought out morality independent of society. There was a real case of such a jungle boy and he never became quite "normal." We communicate with each other through language even if it is through sign language we have the socialization and otherwise we are stunted.
About natural human morality, the idea of the Noble Savage is oh so yesterday.
We are either afraid of the cops or afraid of God or we start eating each other.
Post a Comment