Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » morality

Understanding Decision Making and Self Control

rabbifink — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:51:35 +0000

A little while back, the NY Times Magazine published a fascinating article that I think everyone should read.

The article is based on several comprehensive studies about decision making. People make many decisions each day; the data shows that decision making can wear a person down. Not physically as much as mentally.

It turns out that our brains do have something akin to will power and it can be drained and replenished. The studies show that when people are forced to make a multitude of decisions during the course of a day their decision making power can become so markedly diminished that they are to mentally weak to make any more decisions. Instead people will defer or worse, acquiesce to others and allow them to make their decisions for them.

Clearly, this has broad ramifications across the entire spectrum of people and situations. In one study, parolees had a much greater chance of being granted parole if their case was heard early in the day or session. This factor was more decisive than length of sentence or severity of crime in determining whether parole was granted.

Socially, poor people are often criticized for their bad decision making. The proverbial “buying candy with food stamps” can also be understood using this data. For middle class and wealthy people, food shopping is not decision intensive. The choices are relatively harmless and don’t carry much weight. But for people living on a tight budget, each item is an agonizing choice that slowly but surely drains their will power. Eventually, the brain is too tired to make sound choices and impulse buys become too difficult to resist.

There is a strong correlation between the number of significant choices one makes and one’s general will power. This is one reason dieting is so difficult. After making all the right food choices throughout the day, the brain can become weakened to the point that it cannot withstand the temptation to indulge in “bad foods”.

Another interesting aspect of the studies is the Mardi Gras Principle. The idea that one can increase will power by indulging before a period of self control is a common one. The data says it works, but only kind of works. Other things are equally effective in boosting self control. Indulgence cannot be excused simply because of subsequent self control.

Jewish philosophy intersects with some of the issues raised in the article. For one, in Judaism one is defined by their choices. Our moral choices is what makes us or breaks us. Since this is so, it is very important that we set ourselves up for success and help ourselves to make the right choices. One needs a strategy to make good choices. The article provides this:

“people with the best self-control are the ones who structure their lives so as to conserve willpower. They don’t schedule endless back-to-back meetings. They avoid temptations like all-you-can-eat buffets, and they establish habits that eliminate the mental effort of making choices. Instead of deciding every morning whether or not to force themselves to exercise, they set up regular appointments to work out with a friend. Instead of counting on willpower to remain robust all day, they conserve it so that it’s available for emergencies and important decisions.”

I agree with all the above. In addition, I think Judaism believes that the self control and decision making abilities we possess can be strengthened through hard work like any other physical capacity. Practice makes ~~perfect~~ better. Judaism helps one to be on the alert for decisions and not allow our brains to cop out and defer or decide poorly. We are to be conscious of our decision making at all times and it is supposed that by working on one’s self to make good, positive conscious decisions, one will strengthen their decision making prowess and avoid the problems created by decision fatigue.

Link: NY Times Mag

HT: @marksofla

Ethics Battle: Believers vs. Non-Believers

rabbifink — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:42:28 +0000

One of the confusing things about the Bible is the different names attributed to God. To Bible critics this is an indication that more than one God or more than one version of God or simply more than one author is present in the Bible.

Talmudic Judaism has a different approach. God, the One God, has more than one name (see yesterday’s Rambam class: Rambam Class 5/15/11). Since God is infinite and cannot be limited to one “mood” or “characteristic” therefore different names are used when God is Acting in a specific way. That specific way cannot define God because it would limit God. Instead, the Torah uses different names to identify the character of God in that Act, commandment, prophecy. The Ineffable name of God, יהוה, refers to God’s mercy. The other commonly found name in the Bible is אלוהים. This name refers to God’s precise Judgment.

The two Names play off each other. Without mercy, the judgment would be too harsh and without the judgment, the mercy would be too forgiving. There is a balance. A Perfect balance.

God is both our Father and our King. God loves us and we are expected to love God back. God also metes out punishment and we are expected to fear God.

This is all very nice, but why talk it about it today?

Because of a (fairly) recent article in LA Times.

A couple weeks ago the LA Times reported on a study that determined the willingness of diffferent kinds of people to cheat on a test. Three very interesting things arose from the peer reviewed and published study.

First, that there is no difference between the ethical behavior of atheists and believers. This is surprising to believers because there is a lot of rhetoric directed against non-believers. The rhetoric often claims that non-believers prefer not to believe to give them license to act immorally. After all, if there is no God, why act morally? This study debunks that assumption. There is a better, more precise argument about the difference between the morality of atheists and believers. That is, the believer’s source of morality is a Creator. The Creator can better establish the baseline of morality than humans. An atheist’s version of morality is subject to the ideas of flawed people. (Of course the counter argument is that the word of God is subject to interpretation. To which the counter to that counter is that the interpretations of a specific religious sect are claimed to be Divine as well. And so on and so one…)

The second was that 95% of americans believe in God. Which does skew the perception that God is losing and falling out of the collective american soul. But those 95% have many very different views of God. Some believe God is very involved in the daily lives of humans and others believe God created the world and took a vacation. Others believe that God will render judgment in the afterlife and others do not. The point is that while 95% agree God exists, who that God is, is still very much in debate. But also, I believe the significantly smaller sample size of atheists does affect the results of the this study in some way. I am just not certain how.

The third, even more interesting part of the study demonstrated that there is a difference in the ethical decisions of believers in a punitive God and belief in a compassionate God. Turns out that believers in a punitive God were less likely to cheat than believers in a compassionate God. At first glance, this is not surprising. But it is discouraging. It seems to me that the believers in a compassionate God are able to excuse unethical behavior on account of the belief that God will forgive their sins. Even if God does forgive their sins, isn’t it important to be honest and moral anyway? I believe it is.

Talmudic Judaism accounts for both of these versions of God. We believe that God is compassionate and God is perfectly just. There exists a balance and perhaps this would serve as a correction for those who focus on the compassion of God. This balance is important and upsetting the balance appaers to threaten to affect the morality of believers.

To me, this study affirms the wisdom of the Torah and Talmudic tradition by including both of these aspects of God and not the exclusion of the other.

Source: LA Times

HT: BT

Rambam Class 4/10/11

rabbifink — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:49 +0000

The Rambam class resumed today.

Today we continued further into Chapter 5. The Rambam talks about some more ethical quandaries involving death and adultery. The issues raised are serious and deserve even more time and contemplation than we have given them. Consider the class “food for thought”.

The class is covering some very interesting material and I hope you enjoy listening. I invite you to join us at the Pacific Jewish Center Bais Medrash / Annex on Sunday mornings 8:50 AM.

Alternatively, you can tune in to the podcasts on the blog.

Audio is below.

All audio classes are available by clicking podcasts on the top of this page. Or just click here.

You can also subscribe to all classes in iTunes by clicking here.

Circumcision Follow Up (or why circumcision is not barbaric for Orthodox Jews)

rabbifink — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:39:35 +0000

The previous post about the proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco has attracted the attention of some of the “intactivists” who oppose circumcision. (See Is a Ban on Circumcision Constitutional? Probably Not.) Plus there was more on Twitter…

The previous post was about the legality of such a ban. That is an important question.

An important question has been volleyed back to those who want parents to have the choice to circumcise their sons without government interference.

How is it moral to perform elective surgery on a non-consenting child? If the child wants a circumcision later, then they can get it on their own. What right does a parent have to force a circumcision on their innocent child?

It’s a fair question. I have no gripes with the question.

But there is an answer. A return volley.

Orthodox Jews follow the commandments of the Torah (Old Testament) and the Oral Tradition of how to keep those commandments. The Torah commands us to circumcise our sons when they are 8 days old. Nearly every single child born to an Orthodox Jewish family will grow up to be an Orthodox Jew as well. The percentages are very high. Sure, some people venture off, but even those folks are likely to keep some basic traditions like circumcision.

So, the kid is going to grow up to be an Orthodox Jew. The kid is going to be obligated to have a circumcision and he is going to want fulfill that obligation. It almost guaranteed that the kid will want a circumcision.

Turns out, the parents are doing the kid a favor. The kid wants the circumcision. It is not something that the kid might or might not choose later on. It is a fait accompli.

Intactivists need to realize that the circumcision is not a “choice” like favorite sports team. A circumcision is something that the child is required to do and will accept that obligation as they grow older.

In other words, it is not an elective surgery foisted upon an unsuspecting youth who is likely to regret or will even possibly regret the procedure, thus rendering it barbaric. Under those circumstances, it is not barbaric.

(If you are someone who grew up as an Orthodox Jew and will not circumcise your kids or regret that you have been circumcised, please email me or comment below. I am interested for information gathering purposes.)

You’ve Got To Leave It All Behind | Drasha Lech Lecha 2009

rabbifink — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:43:41 +0000

Special thanks to community member Elizabeth Danziger, founder of Worktalk Communications Consulting, for assisting in transforming this sermon from 2009 into an essay for this year.

Avram’s Journey

Lech Lecha 2009

The Torah begins the story of our forefather Avraham in this week’s parsha. Thus begins the story of the Jewish people. The first Jew begins his journey in Lech Lecha and that journey defines us for all time. We still feel the effects of that journey. The better we can understand and appreciate that journey, the better we can understand and appreciate ourselves and our personal journey.

God commands Avram (not yet named Avraham) to go. “Lech Lecha” means to go. If we analyze the Torah’s words there is more than meets the eye. The Torah says that GD commands Avram: “Go from your land, from your birthplace and from your father’s home.” If all the Torah wanted us to know was that Hashem had commanded Avram to leave or to go, it would have been sufficient to say “lech” or “tzei” – go. Further, the entire section that mentions leaving his land, birthplace and home is superfluous. And it is in the wrong order! First one leaves one’s home, then one’s birthplace or city, and only then does one leave his land or country.

R’ Hirsch says that the word lech comes from the word halach. And that word is related to Chelek, divided and chalak which means smooth, a surface to which nothing adheres. So halach means to go but it connotes separation as well. Sometimes one can separate for the purpose of going to another place, but in this case, the separating was lecha – for Avram’s self.

Avram is separating from three things: Eretz / country, moledes / hometown, and bayis / home. R’ Hirsch says that these three things form the foundation for one’s personality and true essence. Eretz, the country or nationality with all its moral implications. Eretz is like eres – married. Eres also means cradle. In comparison to shamayim (heaven) which is sham (over there), the land, our country gives us our cradle in which we learn our morality. Our land gives us national characteristics and the tremendous power of participation in a nation.

Moledes, birthplace, gives us civic position and independence Even narrower is the bayis, the home where we find our individuality and we grow as unique people.

These Hebrew words make it clear that the Torah values the worth of one’s home and homeland. The Torah is not belittling these concepts by asking Avram to isolate from them. Rather, the Torah is telling us the value of these realms and the greatness of the isolation GD demanded from Avram.

In fact, these demands place Avram in direct conflict with the strongest ideals of his era. Centralism was the prevalent tendency of his age. The feared monarch Nimrod, from whom Avram was running, led the Tower of Babel campaign. That campaign was marked by the slogan of “naaseh lanu shem” – we can make ourselves a name. The tower was to represent the community in general for the glory of mankind. This tendency begot an erroneous conception of a majority which has sway in every direction and every case. And eventually, what is honored by the majority ipso facto becomes the thing that is honored by everybody.

It is certainly true that the majority opinion should be well represented in the community and it should represent that which is highest and holiest by everybody. And in Judaism we would expect the same. Still at the very start of the Jewish journey we are taught: Lech Lecha, go for yourself. Stand on your own, separated from the crowd. No one should limit him or herself to the majority. You cannot be only as honest as everybody else, or as moral as everybody else. We must rise above the majority.

Each person is responsible to GD for himself and if necessary to be alone with GD if he can find no partners with whom to worship. This is what GD demanded from Avram at the start of his journey and the start of our collective journey. The beautiful insights into Hebrew language show us how important eretz, molad and bayis are to us and lech lecha tells us that they are only trumped by the bond that attaches us to GD.

There are always those who say that Judaism should be current and up to date with modern ideals. There are some modern ideals that are consistent with Torah; perhaps social conventions caused them to be ignored until they became prevalent in a modern world. We should and must celebrate those ideals. But, Avram’s first stand was not in accordance with the ancient cultures with whom he lived. While the whole world sought every effort to establish themselves; as civilizations became more complex, Avram was giving up his citizenship and his homeland. He protested the idol worship of the other nations. He separated from it all.

Avram was appointed the first Jew, but he had to prove himself first. He had to prove that he could rise up above the fray and be separate. Avram showed us by example.

Our country, our city, our homes all represent inertia. When we revert to the comfort of habits, customs, and thoughts that we are accustomed to, we are relying too heavily on our cradle that we were raised in. We often fail to move forward because of fear or doubt. Hashem tells Avram, Lech Lecha, do what is right. Do what you know you must do to ensure that you will be separate, that you will be elevated and above the customs and traditions into which you were born.

The lesson of lech lecha is that we must act with conviction and that we must act with a trust and hope for future. Avram could have been reluctant to leave all that he left behind. After all one’s country, hometown and home cane be good values, our core values in fact. But sometimes we need to rise above our complacency and elevate ourselves to heights that can only come when we act with the conviction of lech lecha and we make a substantial break from our inertia and instead act in a way that will bond even more strongly with our families, our neighborhoods, our homelands and above all with GD

In our lives we are called upon to make that same choice so many times. What are my priorities? What is the deciding factor in my decisions?

Avram was also faced with tough choices. How did he respond? What was GD’s call to him? Choose GD, above all. Choose spirituality and Torah above all.

Lech Lecha tells us that our homeland, our city and our homes are all important. They all have tremendous value, but ultimately the choice that is right is the choice that will bind us closest to GD. The choice that brings us the greatest spiritual growth and opportunity to sanctify the name of GD is the right choice. That is the call of Lech Lecha.

A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty

rabbifink — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:03:42 +0000

In the last few months there have been a few death penalty executions. Most notably the D.C. Sniper was executed on November 10, 2009. Since that time I have been thinking about the death penalty. I have discussed it on Twitter and in real life.

The last unit of our Criminal Law course was the Death Penalty. Professor Levenson asked for volunteers to argue for and against the death penal. Normally, I don’t jump at opportunities like this, I prefer to watch and observe other students try to make coherent arguments in front of their skeptical peers… Yet, my had shot up. It was almost involuntary. And I found myself on the side representing “against” the Death Penalty.

There were three of us and we split duties. I chose to make the moral argument against the death penalty. What follows was my basic argument.

In the USA, murder is against the law. One citizen may not take the life of another. This is a good law and is a basic law in any civilized country. The law is based upon our sense of morality. That means that the starting point when thinking about the morality of taking another’s life is, that it is immoral.

Of course there are exceptions. One who fears for his life may defend his life and is justified in killing his would-be murderer. This is called self-defense.

The application of this defense is very specific. There are other defenses or justifications to First Degree Murder but none will serve as a complete defense, they will only mitigate the charge or perhaps affect the sentencing. In other words, taking the life of another is never completely justified unless it to save one’s own life.

There should be no exception for the government. The State and Federal Governments have a duty to observe the same laws of morality the citizens must observe. The only moral excuse for killing is in self defense. Self defense can only be argued when the danger is imminent. Once a murderer is apprehended and incarcerated there is no self defense excuse. An incarcerated prisoner poses no imminent danger, thus the taking of his or her life is by definition immoral.

We are not bound to punish criminals by the same heinous acts they committed. The law of our country does not hold lex talionis. We don’t punish a criminal with the same act he criminally committed. We shudder at the thought of torturing a torturer or raping a rapist or battering a batterer, how could we be so callous about taking the life of a killer.

We have no moral ground to stand on if we take the life of a murderer. Taking the life of a killer simply turns us into murderers.

Murder In Jewish Law and United States Law

rabbifink — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:57:47 +0000

Yesterday we began learning about Homicide in our Criminal Law class at Loyola Law School. Our Criminal Law professor is world famous Laurie Levenson (she is in the news very often). She is an incredible teacher and a very successful practitioner. Studying Criminal Law in her class is a privilege. (Plus, she brings baked goodies for the class and sometimes stops at Schwartz’s Bakery to get some kosher goodies for the two Kosher observant Jews in the class. Pretty nice!)

After learning the building blocks of Criminal Law we began our unit in homicide.

One of the first homicide cases we read was a brutal murder of a 10 year old girl. The defendant offered no defense. He undeniably killed her in a brutal fashion, while intoxicated he took a knife to her, stabbing her about 60 times as he chased her around the house. The court decided that he could not get the death penalty.

Why? The court says that brutality of a murder is not a factor in considering whether a murder is in the 1st degree (incurring the death penalty). First degree murder requires “premeditation” and that is analyzed by looking at 3 factors. 1) planning 2) motive and 3) manner. In this case, the defendant did not plan, had no motive and the manner was not a methodical way of killing. It was random and unnecessary. The court sentenced him to life in prison and he escaped the death penalty.

Many of my co-students found this very difficult to swallow. Here we have a violent, brutal murder who will not get 1st degree murder. Some of my co-students wanted the murderer brutally killed in retribution.

In Jewish Law, murder and some other capital crimes are punishable by a death penalty. How does one “qualify” for the death penalty? A murderer must be warned by two witnesses that his offense will incur the death penalty. He must acknowledge their warning. Then he must commit the murder with 10 seconds. This approach to capital punishment reflects a basic tenet of Judaism.

Judaism is all about moral choices. Therefore, Judaism punishes the murderer who is making a clear, coherent choice. Only with fair warning and a true understanding of one’s actions are the murderer’s actions a clear indication of moral choice to commit murder.

In our Law School case, the fellow did not make a conscious choice. The 3 factors that demonstrate premeditation all demonstrate a choice by the murderer. Planning a murder shows that the murder truly understands what he is doing and is choosing his action of murder. Same for motive and manner. We need to see a conscious choice to take a life for murder to be in the 1st degree.

A drunk man who crazily kills for no reason is not a murderer in the 1st degree. He is a sociopath and must be locked up. But to take his life away via the death penalty requires more than just killing another. It requires a moral choice.

Judaism teaches us that our life is made up of little more than the moral choices we make. Our choices are who we are.

Choose wisely.

Mesira (The Jewish Informant) in Halacha

rabbifink — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:25:27 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear – more discussion there.

The topic of mesira is complex. I do not claim expertise on the subject of who is a moser, but I have heard a discourse from an expert on Jewish and American Law named Rabbi Breitowitz. Aside from teaching law at University of Maryland, Rabbi Breitowitz is a practicing Rabbi in Silver Spring Maryland. When I lived in Baltimore, I heard Rabbi Breitowitz speak on the topic of mesira and I was able to find the same speech online to refresh my memory.

This is my basic understanding of his take on mesira.

He mentions three contemporary positions, Reb Moshe Feinstein, the Aruch HaShulchan and Rav Wosner.

He begins with Reb Moshe. Reb Moshe holds that there is a prohibition of mesira when the secular punishment is worse than the Torah’s punishment. A moser has a halachic status of a rodef, one who is trying to kill another, and must be stopped from his mesira. There are 3 big exceptions. 1) When the person about whom the moser is speaking of is a rodef himself. This is because a person who kills a rodef is not a killer nor is his act of attempting to kill the rodef is not considered a rodef. As an aside, a sexual or physical abuser is considered a halachic rodef and thus there is no prohibition of mesira in those situations. 2) If the moser is preventing a major communal disaster then there is no prohibition. 3) If it one’s job to inform, then mesira will not apply.

This is the most narrow view of when one is permitted to be moser that Rabbi Breitowitz mentions.

The Aruch Hashulchan says in a footnote to section 318 in Choshen Mishpat that in a benevolent and fair country where there is a justice system that does not unfairly imprison Jews, one is not guilty of mesira by informing the government of a fellow Jew’s crimes. He continues by saying “for example in wonderful Czarist Russia”. There is a question as to the seriousness of this footnote as he could not have possibly meant that Czarist Russia was fair and benevolent. The question is whether the entire footnote has value or if the entire thing was a false gesture of good faith to the Czar. It is not likely that the Aruch Hashulchan would add a deliberately misleading footnote and the reasoning of his footnote stands whether his country was wonderful or not. Thus, the Tzitz Eliezer holds that the Aruch Hashulchan means that wherever there is a “procedural justice” there is no mesira.

The third opinion is that of Rav Wosner. His approach integrates the rules of dina d’malchusa dina with mesira. His reasoning is that when the non-Jews follow the Noachide law of creating a set of laws it becomes a halachic basis for the Jew to obey those laws. Thus, he concludes that it cannot be possible to violate the prohibition of mesira if one is following the laws of their country. Since, he must follow the laws of that country his mesira is not against halacha. This does not mean one is required to be a moser, rather the reporting is not a violation of mesira.

It is necessary to define when dina d’milchusa dina constitutes to determine when mesira is not prohibited according to Rav Wosner. The Mechaber says that dina d’malchusa dina is limited to government interests. The Rama disagrees and says that it applies to anything that is designed to promote the well being of society. Most poskim agree with this definition which includes but is not limited to, criminal law, minimum wage laws, environmental laws and child labor laws.

In conclusion, mesira is a term bandied about to protect our own criminals. In reality, it is very difficult to pin down a halachic moser according to the Aruch Hashulchan or Rav Wosner and although it is possible according to Reb Moshe to be a moser it is still unlikely. We need to be honest with ourselves and stop hiding behind archaic halachic terms to justify false ideas.

To listen to the entire discourse online click here.

Solar Eclipse In Judaism

rabbifink — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:18:40 +0000

Last week the world witnessed another wonder of our universe, the Solar Eclipse. This eclipse was visible from Southeast Asia and was the longest eclipse in 18 years and will remain the longest for the next 123 years.

The eclipse has long been associated with mythology and supernatural acts. If you are a fan of the TV show, Heroes, you know what I mean.

In Southeast Asia, many Hindus were gripped by fear. According to Hindu tradition, the eclipse can cause harm to unborn children. Many ancient cultures attached mythological meaning to solar eclipses. Today, we know that the eclipse is part of the solar pattern that is predictable to the second.

What about Judaism? What do we say about the solar eclipse?

The Talmud in Sukkah (29a) gives us a clue.

The Rabbis taught: An account of four things the sun is [eclipsed]: An improperly eulogized head of Jewish court, a betrothed girl who is raped and her cries go unheeded, [...], and two brothers killed on one day.

What in the world does this mean?

Is this more mythology?

The 19th Century German Torah Scholar, Yaakov Etlinger, writes in his Aruch L’Ner, that the Talmudic Rabbis certainly knew eclipses were natural phenomena running their course. (He proves this with inferences from within the text which are too tedious and lost in translation to English). It is similar to what Nachmanadies writes with regard to the Biblical promise after the Great Flood that God would not flood the world again, and he sealed the promise with the rainbow. Of course, the rainbow always existed, it is a natural phenomena. Nachmanadies explains that the rainbow is a sign, a reminder to us and in a different sense to God that He made a promise never to destroy His world again.

Simililarly, when a solar eclipse occurs and the light is temporarily removed from the physical world we are reminded of the moral implications of a dark world. A world in which good leaders are quickly forgotten, women are treated as objects and blood is spilled within one family, is a world of darkness.

When we see the eclipse we are to remember that it is our job as human beings to bring light into our world. The light of morality, mindfulness and sensitivity will protect our society from these terrible social ills mentioned in Sukkah. It is important to recognize what a world we would have if there was no moral light. If our world was thrust into spiritual darkness just as the physical world is thrust into sudden solar darkness during an eclipse our world would be quite different. Seeing this occur in the natural world “enlightens” us to provide that light and prevent the spiritual darkness from overcoming the light.

I think it is absolutely magnificent to live a life where we find meaning and messages from every part of our lives. A life where each moment makes a difference and each of our choices can change the world.

Equally magnificent is the sheer physical beauty of the solar eclipse.

Thanks for reading this post. In appreciation I have provided some of the best footage (seen on NYTimes.com) of last week’s eclipse. Enjoy it – you deserve it.

Obligatory Michael Jackson Post

rabbifink — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:50:57 +0000

For those folks who report on and follow Hollywood gossip and news it sure has been a busy week.

First, Ed McMahon died, then Farrah Fawcett and then Michael Jackson (oh, and Billy Mays too). Of course, the death of Michael Jackson garnered the most attention. Michael Jackson completely revolutionized the entire music industry (Jewish and not Jewish music) and made all kinds of news for his questionable extra-curricular activities.

A friend of mine in the music industry (Jewish and not Jewish music) wrote this on his Facebook page “Goodbye Michael! We will miss you! You taught me so much…” and that got the ball really rolling.

People responded to his status by referring to his notorious trouble with accusations of impropriety with young children. My friend fired back that yes he was flawed but that takes nothing away from his talent. And they went back and forth for a little while.

I am certain that this was not the only such discussion following MJ’s death. We all grapple with the paradox of a deeply flawed and incredibly talented person.

To me, it is really a micro and macrocosm of all of our personal struggles. It is a microcosm because he was just one person and “we” are everyone else, but it is also a macrocosm because while his talent was greater than any of ours, his flaws were deeper as well.

The next level of contemplation regarding MJ is whether his flaws nullify his contributions. Or more precisely, can we still appreciate his talent all the while knowing he was so challenged in other areas? Is he a role model? No. Is he immensely talented? Yes.

Does this sound familiar?

This reminds me of my take on LeBron James and his poor sportsmanship. We need to be sensible enough to differentiate athletic talent, musical talent, or any other talent for that matter and the talented one’s behavior in other arena of life.

I don’t expect or care if an athlete or celebrity “acts out”. They are not famous for their ability to act morally. They are famous for their talents. That is all I care about when I think about that person. MJ’s liabilities in one area do not influence my opinion of his other accomplishments and my appreciation of those accomplishments.

If you are nervous about this because he is a “role model” my response is that you have categorically poor taste in role models. If you are nervous that children look up to him as a role model, my response it that it is the job of the parents to train their children to choose good role models. MJ was not a good role model but then again he should never be looked to as a role model.

And if your child looks to MJ or LeBron or any other famous person who is not famous for their superior ability at making good moral choices you need to parent them and educate them real role models.

A real role model is a person that we can look towards for inspiration and guidance in our daily challenges. Find those people and cherish them. Even if they can’t do the moonwalk…