TRANSCRIPT
*Transcripts are auto-generated and reviewed for accuracy, but there may be some errors in punctuation or words. Listen to the podcast at https://rabbidaniellapin.libsyn.com/ for clarification
The Rabbi Daniel Lapin Podcast
Episode: Do You Have a Clear Morality Matrix? If Not, You Make Many Unnecessary Mistakes
Date: 10/29/23 Length: 51:15
Daniel Lapin 0:00
Greetings, happy warriors. And one of the challenges of being a happy warrior is to be able to hold in mind, conflicting ideas and even conflicting emotions, and yet still be able to function. That was something that the author of The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald, once wrote. And he linked it to the idea of being a big human being to being a big person was the ability to have in mind two conflicting ideas, or I would add two conflicting emotions and still be able to function. It's not easy, and the happy warrior has to be able to do it. Sometimes you're coping with a loss. Sometimes you're coping with stress and worry. Sometimes you're coping with a family emergency, while at the same time you have a financial emergency. And part of becoming a bigger human being than we are, is to be able to train ourselves and make ourselves accustomed to being able to fight on more than one front, as it were at the same time. And so for me, it is not easy to sit down to tape, another podcast show for you. While at the same time, my heart is heavy, still heavy at the loss of 1400 of my brothers and sisters in the land of Israel, three weeks ago, on October, the seventh, and heavy at the thought of the ongoing sacrifices that are being made every day and will continue to have to be made for some unforeseeable time into the future. Worries about the fact that this miraculous little land in the Middle East that came to life 75 years ago, after a devastating blow to the Jewish community, inflicted by the Nazis during World War Two, that this little country will never be the same. It was based on the idea that there has to be some safe place for Jews, some place where members of the Hebrew race are safe. And that has been completely shattered now. And from now onwards, in a way that was never true before, people who enjoyed camping in an isolated forest in the north of Israel. Now we'll start throughout the night, at every time they hear branches rustle or leaves move, people who would walk happily on the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Zichron Yaakov or Anana, not worrying about who might be coming down the street in the opposite direction, all of that has gone. And so yes, my heart is heavy. And at the same time, I am obligated to provide you with something of value, something to help you in your week ahead.
Daniel Lapin 3:35
And so, let me start off by asking not only one question, but perhaps a sequence of questions. And what I am aiming at doing is discussing with you the role that morality plays in your life. And although in terms of our five F format, you would ordinarily place morality under the F of faith. What I would like to try and help you wrap yourself around is the reality that in the same way that all the five F's interact and dovetail with one another. So it is that the question of morality impacts other areas as well. The way in which you raise your children, you would do so with considerably more conviction. Knowing the morality involved, knowing the moral mandates of child raising, you would do so far more confidently and with more conviction than would parents do lack a sense of the moral mandates of child raising? If it's in connection with family members? In other words, should a clash arise between your spouse? And shall we say his or her parents? What is the right position for you to take in the finance arena is sticking firm to the terms of a contract, even if it is going to harm the person who signed that contract with you, never believing that it might ever come to the point to which it has arrived? is sticking to the terms of that contract moral? Or is it more moral to surrender the contract, tear it up as it were, and, and and split the costs split the loss? If you stuck to the terms of the contract, you would be whole and the other party would lose? If you surrender the contract? Well, you could decide to perhaps split the loss, which is more moral. And knowing the answer to that means you can act with certainty, you can act with confidence and conviction. And so morality becomes something that is not only for consideration on church at church on Sunday, but it is something that impacts our lives every single day of the week. What is more, I think it is important to understand that the word morality never means anything. If you don't also define the system of morality to which you refer.
Daniel Lapin 6:53
For instance, it was said by many on during the days following the terrorist attack on America 9/11 That it was immoral of the terrorists to do what they did. But obviously, it was not the way they and many of their co-religionists sought. Otherwise, the actions would hardly have been celebrated. And the terrorists wouldn't have been celebrated as heroes. And so to simply assume that there is a universal morality to which everybody subscribes. No, it's not like that at all. There is absolutely no such thing as a universal morality that is self-evident to everybody. Not at all. And so that has to be clarified, in order for you to be able to act with full confidence and conviction in all areas of your life. Thirdly, I want to stress that morality is not like, shall we say, walking somehow or another, regardless of how badly or how brilliantly, parents, parents, their young toddlers, they start to walk some earlier some later. But it's not as if parents have to go to courses, to learn how to teach their youngsters to be able to walk? No, there is something else. Morality is not like learning to walk. Morality is more like calculus, or cooking, or car repair. You have to learn about it. It's not innate.
Daniel Lapin 8:55
And something else that isn't innate, that I have to ask you to do, and to remind you to do is to subscribe to the podcast. And you're used to this, of course already, because every single podcast you listen to, they always say, you know, please go ahead and subscribe. And the reason is that it is helpful to the content creator involved, in this case, your app I That would be me. And it is without cost to you. It is something that affects the metrics of how a readership is measured. It affects the algorithms in terms of how the content is promoted. And so I do the same as everyone else in this regard, in that I asked you to please go ahead and take a moment right now to make sure that you are subscribed to this podcast. That would be fantastic. And I would I'm say that I'm ready to move on from the principles such as morality is not like walking, but it's like calculus or cooking or car repair, you have to learn about it. It's not innate. There are parents who raised their children without a morality, there are some who do it through negligence. And then there are those who raised their children without a morality through a distorted perception of morality itself. Who are they to impose a moral system on their children, let their children grow up and choose for themselves. And, well, that is not so easy. And when there are enough people in society who do not have a shared moral system, then you do not have a community, you no longer have a society.
Daniel Lapin 10:58
I speak about America because I'm most familiar with America. But much of what I say is true in every country, whatever country you live in, it's let it's true on some level, in America in the summer of 2020, protesters, the really rioters and looters caused billions of dollars of destruction. And it's not without cost. There were individuals who had to pay the price of that. And somehow there was confusion in the morality of the society. People got arrested for going for gathering at a church. But if the same number of people were protesting for black lives matter, they were given a free pass. Obviously, there is a moral system that okays that. It's not my moral system. And it's clearly not the moral system of many people in the United States, which is why it is evident that America is no longer a society, a culture, a civilization, a country, it is none of those things right now, obviously, it is clear that a moral system that says that people who want to, if you'll pardon me protest, the climate change, and they are allowed to block a highway and inconveniencing other people who are trying to get to work. The system that says that that is moral, is clearly the system guiding those people who are blocking the highway. But it's not the moral system of everybody else. And so this confusion about morality is really very serious. Indeed, it should not be dismissed as something to be discussed by theologians or by philosophers or by ethicists. No, you and I, each of us needs clarity on the question of morality. And we need to live among other people who share that vision of morality. Because although I can comfortably live among people, who have a different attitude towards what is good music, and I can comfortably live among other people who have a different view of what constitutes good art, I don't see how I can live in proximity with people who subscribe to a completely different moral system. That's a reality. And obviously, that has a bearing on Israel and Gaza. Neighbors with entirely different moral systems do not work out well. And that's true in terms of your own neighborhood. If you live next door to somebody with an entirely different moral system, it won't work well. It just won't be good. And, I mean, you don't really need me to tell you the many different ways it's going to go very bad. And the same is true for countries as well, once Germany was taken over by Nazism. And once a certain critical number of Germans in the German population in 1930s embraced the morality of Nazism. war was inevitable, it had to happen, because it's not possible to get on with neighbors have an entirely different moral system. So I hope you're beginning to see that morality really is important, and you do need to clarify your own. Do I really need to spell out that marrying somebody with a different moral system from yours is a huge mistake. It's a life-spoiling mistake. And yet, I can't tell you how many people I know who got married, without any conversation about a shared moral system. Oh, we love each other. We're in love. As if that explains it all. Know, if you get married, you definitely need to make sure that your intended spouse shares your moral system. My goodness, so much misery could have been avoided. If every couple getting married knew that simple rule. If you don't have a shared moral system, do not get married, spend more time working it out. If you really are wanting this person, then you you shouldn't tie yourselves to one another until that has been settled. Don't use your time dating to go to movies. Use your time to try and iron out what is the moral system that will rule and regulate your marriage. It's such an important Peacemaker. It's such an important Joy maker in a marriage to be married to somebody who shares with whom you share a moral vision. It's so clear. So let's take a look at some moral questions, shall we?
Daniel Lapin 16:50
Here is one such important moral question. Apropos of the three weeks of fighting, that was launched by the attack on Israeli settlements, early in the morning of October, the seventh let us imagine for the moment that 1400 Israelis were killed. But let's imagine there was no mutilation No torture, no burning alive, no rape, rape, by the way, also live and dead in other words necrophilia. Again, the the information is sadly out there, I've tried to shield myself from a lot of it because there are certain things you cannot un-remember. But with photographs taken with the body cameras of the Palestinians themselves. The evidence of what transpired is then I asked you to imagine that 1400 people were killed, but they were killed by a clean shot to the head. Each one of them. And it happened quickly, before many of them even knew what was happening. No torture, no rape, no necrophilia, no burning alive. No, none of none of the unspeakable brutality that took place occurred. And my question to you now is, would this change your idea, or your sense of what should now be done? In other words,
Daniel Lapin 18:43
the war that Israel has launched, promising to take out come us? Would you feel that that is less justified? If the 1400 people were killed cleanly? A stage further. How about if they were not civilians? How about if what was invaded were army barracks and the 1400 people killed? Were all uniformed Israeli soldiers. Would you feel that that changes? What level of retribution Israel is entitled to inflict? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Yes or no. It's a simple one, right? Yes or no? And yes or no questions are hard, aren't they? Because what people like to do is fudge with morality. Now, you cannot fudge with morality any more than you can with mathematics, or any more than you can with car repair, or any more than you can with cooking In, right, in, in calculus, if you're asked to provide the integral, then it's very clear what the answer is. And it isn't good enough for you to say, you know, it's, it's 11. But it could also be 72. And, and I want to allow it to also be minus 24. No, it doesn't work that way cooking. You've got to put in two tablespoons of olive oil. Is that what you did? Look, you know, I don't want to be so anal about it. I put in somewhere between a teaspoon and a gallon. And it wasn't olive oil. It was motor oil. No, it doesn't work like that. The reality is that the world works in many areas on precision. Now, if somebody says, I love you so much, you don't have to ask for a numerical answer. But in car repair, if somebody says, did you measure the voltage at the at the chip that controls gear change of the engine? And you say, Yes, I did. And I says, Well, how much what? What was the voltage? And you say, Well, you know, let's not be anal about it. I think we've got to accept a range of voltages. Yeah, between 4.9 and 5.01. Maybe, but basically, no, it's got to be what it has got to be. And morality is like that, as well. I noticed that many celebrities talking about the events since October, the seventh in the Middle East. They say, Well, you know, I believe in peace and and love. And I want the innocent people on both sides to be protected. A meaningless statement. You know why it's a meaningless statement? Because one has to ask the question of whether it is moral, to make a distinction between competence and civilians. And your instinctive reaction is going to be well, I feel there has to be a distinction made between combatants and civilians. And the key lies in what you just said, I feel that there needs to be.
Daniel Lapin 22:46
You see, as the principles of morality began to fade away from the early 60s, all the way through the 70s and 80s, and 90s. And into the 2000s, people began to substitute feeling for facts. And because they once upon a time was clarity, of morality in the United States. And again, true for other countries. At the moment, there is no clarity of morality. And as a result, people recognizing the inevitable intrinsic need for a morality have replaced it with what they feel. And I really would recommend that you make a concerted effort from now on as much as possible to not make statements or responses that start with I feel, but try and get used to replacing it with I think. Now, the reason we like saying I feel is because it's less confrontational, it's more polite, because nobody can contradict your feelings. It's how I feel. If I were to say, I think you are wrong, I think the matter has to be resolved this way. That's very confrontational. But if I said, I feel that you are wrong, and the matter has to be dealt with this way. Then you might well say, Well, let's look at your feelings. Let's try and understand what causes your feelings. God forbid that it's anything objective. God forbid that it's anything absolute, God forbid that you actually are wrong. No, I feel that it's wrong. That, by the way, is why it is when you are in negotiations with people, whether it's on a personal family level, or whether it's on a financial level. On negotiations, you very often do want to make use of the word feel precisely because you want to keep the conversation going. And feelings cannot be nailed down. And so it's possible to say, I understand why you feel that way. And if the person doesn't object You keep going. And you say, you know, you feel that way because this happened, and that happened. And you have a conversation and you can start finding a point of agreement. That's what happens. And so, people, so I feel there has to be a difference between combatants and civilians. But is there really is that part of morality?
Daniel Lapin 25:25
And if so, was the firebombing of Dresden in Germany during World War Two immoral was the firebombing of Tokyo in February 1945 months before the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moral? right that that killed the fire bombings killed 100,000 People in Tokyo died horribly asphyxiation burning. And it was they were not destroying military and industrial targets. General Curtis LeMay, either committed an act of great morality, or an act of great immorality. What is it think about that. And you'll see that these kinds of morality decisions are all linked to whatever is the foundational matrix of morality to which you adhere, we all need such a thing. What is it? That is the key thing. And that's what we're talking about. And I'm posing a lot of these questions to you. Because it's an exercise in the same way, as if you were to come to a personal trainer, or a physical training instructor. Or, or you were going to a physical therapist, the person might say, look, take this weight, and try and raise it, I want to see where you're at what is, you know, have take the exercise, and show me or show yourself where you're at. Or he might say squeezed my hand. Or he might say, a push here. And all of these things are to show him and to show you that you need this exercise. In a way, if you'll pardon me, that is what I am doing. I'm posing these morality exercises to you. In order to help you figure out where you stand. Do you have a morality matrix? And if not, what are you going to do about it? Does your family subscribe to a single unified morality matrix? Where does it come from? These are things that can be arrived at through these exercises. Basically, the questions I've been asking you to think about is preservation of life, the main moral consideration if so, the calculus of whether firebombing Tokyo was good or evil was moral or immoral, would simply be dead, it's end up saving more lives than it took. But maybe there's more to it than that. Maybe you're never allowed to deliberately kill civilians.
Daniel Lapin 28:36
So these things need resolution. Because otherwise, you're blundering around in a in a state of complete hopelessness. It's like being in a forest without a compass, or a map or a flashlight at night. In order to find yourself, you find your way out of the forest, you kind of need a map to show you the way to go, and then a compass to show you which direction it is that you have to take. That's why I am devoting today's show, to what appears to be a simple question of morality. But which turns out to be not at all simple. I will tell you this, that the question of what is happening in the Middle East is not a question that can be resolved by a bureaucrat with a map and a pencil. The idea that this is over the land and I've spoken about this in previous shows, that this is over the land, and all we've got to do is the two-state solution. Your draw a map, draw a line down the map. Now it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons Say that governmental bureaucrats are so stymied by this is precisely because, again, speaking for the American State Department, no State Department official has ever been friends, or been intimately acquainted with somebody who's willing to die for his religion. The State Department is made up of bureaucrats who through their training and their university background, believe that religion is primitive, outmoded and irrelevant in a modern world. And what's happening in Israel and Gaza, is disturbing evidence that religion is more central, foundational and basic to human life today than ever before.
Daniel Lapin 30:56
I prepared an audio program called the Clash of Destiny: Decoding the Secrets of Israel and Islam. Tower of Power x, excuse me, did I say Tower of Power, no cancel that - Clash of Destiny? That's what it is. That Clash of Destiny: Decoding the Secrets of Israel and Islam. Basically, as I've explained before, we are living through historic times, a titanic struggle between the culture of the Koran and the twin civilizations of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. And what did the struggle with Nazi Germany in the middle of the 20th century? What did that have to do with anything? All of that explained in an amazing two hour program called the Clash of Destiny. And you will find that on our website at Rabbi Daniel lapin.com. Rabbi Daniel Lapin L A P I N Rabbi Daniel lapin.com. And look for Clash of Destiny, where I think you will open your eyes wide and say, Oh, I never understood this. It will be as if a brilliant beacon of blazing incandescence suddenly lit up a dark forest in which you find yourself all of a sudden, it makes sense and make sense. It does make no question about Make no mistake about that. All right.
Daniel Lapin 32:52
So with Clash of Destiny in the background, let's look at the famous trolley problem. I'm sure you've heard about it. It's, again, this is not particularly deep and profound, provided you have a matrix of morality. But if you don't, you could write a PhD thesis on this and get a graduate degree from any university in the world. Because the stuff is simple, so many things become simple. Once you have a matrix of morality. I was once advising a parents who were having trouble with a son. And he was already in his 20s. And he was sitting around the house and watching videos and playing games and, and smoking marijuana weed. And they were very disturbed. And fairly early on in the conversation. I said to them, how does he get around like, even going somewhere to buy this will this he takes his call? I say oh, okay, okay, fine. I understand, just to give clarification, if he sits around the house, or how did he get a call? So the woman said, My husband got it for him. The husband looked a combination between annoyed that she was sort of palming it off on him. And guilty because he knew it was true. It was there kind of these moments sometimes in counseling, I shouldn't I shouldn't tell you, but there are times where you watch things going on between a husband and a wife. And it gives you so much insight into what they haven't told you yet. But at any rate, in this case. I said how does he fill his car with gasoline and this year, maybe it's an electric car. Now that's a gasoline car. Well, he uses our credit card. And I asked a few more questions. And it became perfectly evident that his parents were enabling his self-destructive lifestyle. His parents were underwriting it, they were financing it. And so I asked the obvious question, which is, so why didn't you turn off the financial spigot? And they both answered like almost simultaneously, which suggested to me that this was something they had discussed and already worked out. And the answer was, it would be immoral to use our financial strength against him. Okay, there you go. And that led me to a conversation with him as to tell me the system of morality that says this. Right? Oh, me. There is a system of morality that validates cutting the throats of airline stewardesses. In the name of a greater good, there is a morality that says, it is okay to burn somebody's store. Because you all are supporting Black Lives Matter. I get it. There's a moral system that says, not only are you allowed to do that, but you're a hero for doing it. But, but it's not my moral system. So tell me what moral system says that you may not employ your economic vitality and strength in order to try and shape your son's behavior. And they looked at me as if I was crazy. And I repeated my question. You told me it would be immoral to withhold financial support from your son, who is behaving self-destructively. And they said, Well, we you know, we just feel that, okay, then no conversation.
Daniel Lapin 37:04
Because human beings cannot live without a moral system. And so, here is the trolley problem trolley problem is, there is a railway track in front of you. A driverless train is thundering down the track towards you. And right in front of you is a switch, or what in England, we used to call points. Basically, it's a mechanism that allows you to shift the train onto track A or track B, the trains coming down. If you do nothing, it'll continue down track A, if you push the lever, the train will be diverted onto track B. On track A are for death railway workers, who are going to be mowed down and killed by the oncoming train. And on track B is one death construction worker unaware that the train is coming, if you do nothing, for railway workers will die. If you push the point over, you will kill one and save the life of four. Now, if indeed you believe that preservation of most number of human lives is the only determinant of morality, well, then you will know what to do right, you obviously have to push the point, you push the lever and divert the train from track A would have killed four people onto track B where it's now going to kill one person. to it. I will say having established that to your satisfaction, and that's what you would do. And I know that that's very probably not what you would do, but I'm speaking rhetorically, once we've settled that, yes, you want to save as many lives as possible, and you are a moral person for pushing the lever and saving for while condemning one. We now change the situation a little bit still, the train is thundering down the track, and it's going to kill four people. But you are located on a bridge over the track. And sitting on the edge of the bridge on the parapet of the bridge, dangling his feet over the side is a large lady. And it so happens that if she would have fallen to the track in front of the train, it would kill her but it would also derail the train and we'll save the lives of the four people down the track. So now my question to you is having told me that you would push the lever so the train kills one instead of four Are you now ready to reach out your hand and push the fat lady off the bridge, so that you will kill one in order to save for? I'm sure you'll agree with me that morally and legally, there's absolutely no difference between pushing the lever and pushing the lady. In both cases, you are killing one person in order to save the lives of four, or 20 or 100. Relevant numbers make you happy. And my guess is that even those of you who decided that the moral thing to do would be to push the lever and kill one and say four will draw the line at pushing the fat lady off the bridge that you wouldn't do. And now you should be scratching your head in puzzlement because you can't understand yourself. Why is it that you are kind of moving towards being willing to push the lever. But now that I compare it to pushing the lady off the bridge now you don't like the idea so much. You will surely see that herein lies a huge flaw in your moral matrix.
Daniel Lapin 41:15
How's about your spouse is deathly ill the medicine there's only one jar of the medicine available in your village that could be reached in time. And it's usually it's a $10 jar of medicine. The pharmacist, a dreadful man says to you, you want that bottle? It's $1,000. And you say to him, my spouse won't survive the night if I don't have that medicine. I don't have $1,000. I have $10 I thought it was $10 used to be $10. Yesterday was $10 the day before. And the pharmacist says tough luck. I've raised the price. My business, it's my bottle of medicine, I will sell it to you for $1,000. Is it moral? Is it moral for you? That night after the pharmacist has gone home to break into the pharmacy and steal the bottle of medicine? Is that moral? Or is it immoral? If Palestinians came into your house with their AK47s, and they said to you, do you have any Jews hidden here? And the truth was that you did have some Jews hidden in a secret cellar? Is it moral to lie? I'm not saying it's an expedient? I'm not saying would you do it? I'm saying in the absolute sense. Is it moral to say to the Palestinian murderers? No, we have no Jews here? Or you have to say, Yep, you got us there in the cellar? Or do you simply shrug your shoulders? What is the moral thing to do? Or in other words, are they ever circumstances in which it is moral to lie? So these are some of the questions that you have to think about in order to analyze whether or not you have a moral system that adequately answers all these questions without any internal contradictions. And without any baffling problems. You got to decide, haven't you? You really have to know. How about if a stranger you don't know, is being threatened with their life by some thug. And the absolute only way to save the life of that person is to shoot the thug dead. Is it moral for you to do that? Or are you guilty of taking a life? Do you have a moral matrix that answers that question? Or do you respond to me by saying well, I feel see the problem with that. If Israel launches an attack on Gaza, that is going to end up killing 100,000 Gazan Palestinians, would you discredit that attack on the basis of proportionality? They only killed 1400 of your citizens, you killing 100,000 of this that's not a proportional response. It is therefore immoral Is that what you would say? In other words is proportionality. Part of your moral system, you have to know that how about if the only way to save the lives of five people, 50 people, 500 people in of your country, not people, you know, just members of your society. The only way is to torture a secret out of a soldier on the other side, moral or immoral? Do you have an answer? And I'd love to hear these from you. I'm actually deliberately not giving you the answer in today's show. Because I want to not torture you, but I want to torment you. I really want to give you an opportunity to think deeply about these things before I provide an answer. And whether or not you like my answer will also very much depend on whether you have alternative answers.
Daniel Lapin 46:06
You've got to decide today, for today, all I want to do is help you think through the necessity for establishing a moral system of your own, making sure that its moral system shared with those nearest and dearest to you. And finally ascertaining exactly what this moral system is, and what it says about specific moral dilemmas. These are the questions that you should think about. Because if you manage to get through this little mini-course this week or next week, not only will you be able to gain far greater clarity and insight into what is happening in the Middle East right now. But you will gain greater clarity and insight into what is happening in America right now. You will gain greater clarity and insight into the criminal justice system in your country, wherever it is, you will gain greater insight into medical assistance in dying a policy now in Canada that is responsible for the death of a substantial number of Canadians, moral or immoral. You cannot have it both ways. It is either moral for doctors to help patients kill themselves, or it is immoral for doctors to do that. Maybe it's not even a doctor, maybe it's your friend next door asks you to help him kill him. He wants to die. Is it moral for you to do so? After all, you're helping another human being get what he wants? Or is it immoral? Is it moral? To supply anything that your customer requires? Is that moral? And where does that morality stop? Is it moral for you to sell a gun? To a customer who wants a gun? Is it moral for you to sell pornography to a customer who wants pornography? And if it is not moral, what is the basis for that? And please don't say I just feel that way. I mean, you can say it but then of course that ends our conversation. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Let us devote this week to trying to gain greater moral clarity. You cannot imagine what a pleasure it is in life. To not have these kinds of baffling enigmas, to have moral clarity is so wonderful. It allows you to act with confidence in terms of your family. It allows you to act in confidence in terms of your finances, it allows you to act in confidence in terms of your friendships. Right when do you sacrifice a friendship over an issue? Wouldn't you like to know these things? Well, life is quite different when you do have a coherent and reliable moral matrix. And that is what we are going to work on together. I'd love to hear your thoughts, the the Happy Warriors website. If you're not yet a happy warrior, then you should become one. And that way we can communicate obviously just because of the limits of time and what is feasible. I'm only able to engage in conversation with happy warriors. And there are a few exceptions. A woman who was not a is not a happy warrior wrote to me with a huge problem she had she had lost a son and she was killed. I sing certain demands on her remaining children. And again, a very straightforward moral question provided you have a moral matrix. She, was pretty fully begging for some help and an answer. And, and that I did. And I occasionally do go outside the rules that we have structured in our ministry. And I did answer her even though she wasn't a happy warrior. And I think it was a mistake to have done so more of that story perhaps next week. But for now, become make sure you are a happy warrior and let me know whatever struggles you are going through, in trying to determine a matrix of morality. Until next week, when we continue, I wish you a week of growth as you move onwards and upwards by improving each of your five F's, your finances, your faith, your family, your friendship, and your friendships and your fitness. I'm Rabbi Daniel Lapin. God bless.
