What would Moses Do?

As a young man still not ready to meet with God, Moses goes out of Pharaoh’s palace and sees the hardship of the Hebrew slaves. He spots an Egyptian beating a slave and kills him. This is the immature Moses’ execution of justice on his own. He is disturbed by the violence that he encounters, but acts hastily and commits murder.
The next day he sees two Hebrew slaves fighting. He has matured now, and even though the Torah has not yet been revealed, and Moses is unaware of the command to rebuke his friend, he admonishes them at the risk of their revealing his deed of the prior day. Then Moses flees to Midian, a self imposed exile from the land of his childhood. Here Moses rescues Jethro's daughters from attack by outsiders.
The pattern of Moses maturation is very instructive for us. This series of three ethical decisions lead up to God’s decision to make Moses the leader of His chosen people. God hear the cries of the Hebrew slaves and finds a leader to help them leave Egypt in this son of the tribe of Levy. What can we learn about leadership from Moses behavior up to this point?
Clearly, Moses has a strong sense of justice and the courage to act. Many of us have strong feelings about the war in Gaza, and few of us have taken a stand. A mere 1000 Jews stood in public to stand by the Jewish state in a public display of support, and fewer were present at the counter demonstration that reports to have had 3000 protesters. Pundits have written columns, but how many of us have written to our legislators and political leaders asking them to act on our behalf in one way or the other.
Moses also had his priorities straight. By seeking justice for the Hebrew slave, Moses was forced to give up all the comforts of Pharaoh’s palace. Moses was a prince. He was raised by the daughter of the most powerful person in the land, yet he chose to leave everything behind in the pursuit of Justice. Fortunately, we are not confronted with these choices. We can have all the comforts of our lives and still write checks to Jewish and Zionist organizations like the Jewish National Fund or Americans for Peace Now. To take an afternoon off and go demonstrate our will about the war in Gaza would hardly set us back. The question I would like answered is why, if we don’t have to give up as much as Moses, do we not pursue justice with even a fraction of his vigilance?
I am particularly impressed by the fact that God sees the willingness, ability, and calling to rebuke a fellow as an attribute of leadership. God wants us to stand up for justice before loyalty to any group or people. To rebuke a fellow in the name of justice could be very difficult and lead to ostracism from one’s own community. Clearly, the message that God is sending us by making this a criterion of Moses leadership is that justice is above all loyalties because the pursuit of justice is divine.
The order of Moses’ maturation events is also very instructive. It could be argued that it is easier to seek justice for your own people, as Moses did in the first instance. To seek justice between two members of your own people is a bit more challenging for the reasons just stated, but to seek justice between strangers must be elevated to a higher level. When Moses helps Zipporah and her sisters, he is stepping into a conflict between strangers. The consequence of this battle has reduced personal implications for him.
The Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit distinguishes between ethics and morals based on a spectrum of personal implications. He says that ethics are about thick relations; relationships with people or groups who influence your live. This could be enemies or friends but doesn’t include strangers. Morals guide our behavior towards strangers, thin relations, because the distance between our lives and theirs is so great that there are virtually no implications to their behavior or suffering. Morals, according to Margalit, are about how we should care for strangers because, if there was no moral in place, we would probably not act. Moses intervention on behalf of Yethro’s daughters is a moral decision. He acts because sometimes the parties to injustice need outside intervention, even if the intervention doesn’t help the people who intervene.
I like the distinction between ethics and morals and the description of thick and thin relations, but I am uncomfortable with Margalit’s final conclusion; that all action is motivated by personal gain. I think the author of the Torah wanted us to ask these questions as he carefully positioned this episode just before the meeting between God and Moses on Sinai.
Writing about justice, ethics and morality at a time of war between my people, Jews & Israelis, and Hamas, makes me ask some tough questions about my own sense and execution of justice.
Do I do enough to stay informed before coming to ethical and moral decisions? Am I discerning in how I read the press? Do I let national loyalties disturb the criticality of my inquiry?
Once I make my decisions about justice, do I accept the status quo of my decision or do I continue to seek new facts and information to constantly challenge my opinions and decisions? What do I do with the opinions I have? Do I seek justice in the Jewish way by giving tzedakah? Do I write letters to legislators and politicians? Do I call my representatives in Congress and push for my agenda?
And of course, there is the space of my communal action. How should I be in my community? Can I teach about the situation? Can I open minds and hearts to the plight of the injured and bereaved? Can I train a new generation to be more careful before it chooses the military option?
I am not interested in blame right now. I am interested in the sanctity of human life. I’m interested in the behavior of my people, and I am interested in the justice of my creator. This is the lens through which my behavior in the world is motivated, and it is the motivation for my decision to do, in the words of President Elect, Barack Obama, “all that is in my power,” to seek justice and pursue it.