Become a beta tester for my Jewish ethical AI engine!

I created a chatbot that answers any question with Jewish ethics

Readers (especially on this Substack) have been seeing my progress in defining a Jewish ethical framework, something I do not believe has ever been done this formally before. I have defined axioms, values, and rules for applying those values when they conflict.

This week I realized that I could incorporate this framework into a custom built GPT-based AI engine to test it out.

So far, I am amazed.

You can ask it anything - from personal ethical dilemmas to international politics, from medical ethics to science fiction scenarios.

The Jewish Ethics Chatbot differentiates itself from regular AI chatbots in some crucial ways.

• It won’t answer a question immediately but ask clarifying questions to understand the context better

• Those clarifying questions help make the questioners sharpen their own thinking in an ethical way, and even to reconsider their assumptions in the initial question.

• It describes what Jewish values it is considering and how to balance them during the conversation.

• It gives its best answer, based on all material plus inferred context.

• Upon request it will explain its exact logic flow.

It is already better than most newspaper advice columnists for personal ethics questions:

---

Under what circumstances, if any, may I take inexpensive items like pens or notepads home from my office for personal use? everyone does it and the company does not seem to mind.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for your thoughtful question. Before exploring ethical reasoning, let's surface a few contextual elements that might affect the analysis:

1. Company Policy: While you mentioned “the company does not seem to mind,” can you clarify whether there's an explicit policy (written or communicated) about taking supplies for personal use?

2. Intent and Extent: Are you asking about taking a few pens occasionally for incidental home use, or using office supplies regularly for non-work-related personal benefit (e.g., restocking home office)?

3. Role and Responsibility: Do you have any fiduciary, managerial, or symbolic leadership role at the company that might influence others’ behavior by your example?

Could you clarify the first point: Does your employer have any stated policy — formal or informal — regarding the use or removal of office supplies for personal use?

You said:

I believe that there is a policy not to use company assets for any other purpose. As I said, everyone ignores it and it does not seem the company minds unless it is much more egregious. I am only talking about a few items, not to stock a home office. I am in middle management. No one reports to me. I am, however, identifiably Jewish.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you — those clarifications are deeply relevant. Here are the key ethical factors now in play:

1. There is a formal policy against personal use of office assets.

2. The actual practice is widespread disregard for this policy regarding small items.

3. Your own usage is minimal and non-abusive.

4. You are in middle management, with no subordinates, but visibly Jewish.

This activates a few important Jewish ethical concerns that may conflict:

• Brit (Civic Loyalty): Respect for just institutional rules (especially those agreed to contractually or legally).

• Lifnei Iver: Avoiding enabling others’ wrongdoing or setting a norm that legitimizes minor corruption.

• Kavod HaBriyot & Anavah: Maintaining dignity and humility — especially when visible as a representative of Jewish values.

• Emet: Truthfulness and integrity in use of shared resources.

• Din veRachamim: Justice and mercy — especially when rules are inconsistently enforced or known to be symbolic.

But also:

• Lo Ta'amod / Areivut: What is your obligation when the system tolerates minor ethical drift? Is silent complicity acceptable?

• Marit Ayin (Appearance of Impropriety): Does visible Jewish practice amplify your responsibility to model integrity, even in small things?

Before we analyze further: Do you feel your coworkers might observe or interpret your actions as “representative” of Jews in the workplace — either positively or negatively?

You said:

They might.

ChatGPT said:

That acknowledgment raises the ethical stakes. Even in minor cases, visible actions by identifiably Jewish individuals can affect perceptions of Jewish integrity — fairly or unfairly. This invokes not just marit ayin (appearance of impropriety), but a form of communal Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying God's name) — acting in ways that bring honor to Judaism through personal integrity.

Let’s also clarify the institutional dimension:

• The formal policy forbids the behavior.

• Informally, it's tolerated when minor.

• No enforcement occurs unless the behavior becomes excessive.

• You are aware of this dual standard, as is the culture.

Here’s the final point I need to clarify before issuing a reasoned ethical judgment:

Do you believe this cultural disregard of the rule is a benign company norm, or do you think it reflects (or risks leading to) broader ethical decay in how the company treats rules, accountability, or fairness?

You said:

No, this is just a benign company norm.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you. That distinction is ethically significant. I now have enough to proceed.

Please type \finalize if you are ready for a reasoned Jewish ethical judgment based on the clarified facts and values.

You said:

\finalize

ChatGPT said:

✅ Confirmed Facts:

• You are in middle management at a company with a formal policy prohibiting personal use of company assets.

• Despite this, small personal use (e.g., taking pens or notepads) is common and informally tolerated.

• Your own use is minimal and not for personal profit or home office supply.

• You have no direct reports but are visibly Jewish in a workplace where actions might be viewed as reflecting on Jews.

• The company’s tolerance of minor supply use is a benign norm, not symptomatic of broader ethical decline.

---

🔍 Core Values Triggered:

• Brit (Civic Loyalty): Upholding just institutional rules and workplace agreements.

• Emet (Truth and Integrity): Acting honestly in use of communal resources.

• Lifnei Iver (Do Not Enable Wrongdoing): Avoiding behavior that sets a permissive tone or encourages drift.

• Kavod HaBriyot (Human Dignity): Including the dignity of public Jewish identity.

• Marit Ayin (Appearance of Impropriety): Avoiding actions that could appear unethical, even if minor.

• Din veRachamim (Justice and Mercy): Acknowledging when rules are functionally symbolic or interpreted with leniency.

---

⚖️ Conflict Analysis and Overrides:

• While Brit obligates honoring formal policy, this is overridden by a consistent de facto norm within the institution — provided it is not materially harmful or deceptive (supported by Din veRachamim).

• Lifnei Iver and Emet remain active: even culturally tolerated rules may require a higher standard of honesty if one's actions are noticed or replicated.

• Marit Ayin becomes more weighty given your visibility as a Jew, especially in contexts where actions can be read as representative.

• Kavod HaBriyot demands special care not to cast doubt on Jewish ethics through even trivial missteps.

---

🧭 Ethical Judgment:

It is ethically problematic — though not gravely wrong — to take office supplies for personal use, even in a benign culture of tolerance, when:

• A formal policy prohibits it,

• You are aware of that policy, and

• You are visibly Jewish in a context where others may draw conclusions from your behavior.

Given those factors, Jewish ethics recommends abstaining from taking such items, even in small quantities, as a matter of Kiddush Hashem, integrity, and public responsibility.

However, if:

• You clarify that certain uses are accepted by supervisors (e.g., a pen for home note-taking),

• Or if you explicitly seek and receive informal permission,

then the action may fall within the bounds of Din veRachamim and institutional covenantal practice, and would not be ethically prohibited.

---

✡️ Final Note:

This recommendation reflects structured Jewish ethical reasoning. It does not constitute a halachic ruling. Complex or uncertain cases should be brought to qualified rabbinic or halachic authorities.

Would you like a one-sentence summary for workplace use or moral reflection?

You said:

Sure.

ChatGPT said:

Summary: Even when small rule-bending is tolerated, visibly Jewish professionals should model integrity by avoiding personal use of office supplies unless clearly permitted — honoring both truth and public dignity.

---

And you can ask it the kinds of questions that Israel has to deal with every day:

---

When does a nation have the right to pro-actively attack another pre-emptively?

ChatGPT said:

The ethical question of when a nation may proactively (preemptively) attack another is complex and involves potential conflicts among core Jewish political values, especially:

• Pikuach Nefesh (preservation of life)

• National Preservation and Self-Defense

• Peace as a Goal

• Justice and Just Warfare

• Ethical Sovereignty

Jewish ethics permits preemptive strikes when the threat is imminent and credible, and when all reasonable diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. The tradition supports the idea of “If someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first” (Sanhedrin 72a), but it simultaneously forbids aggression for conquest, dominance, or ambiguous “potential” threats​.

Before continuing, I need to ask:

Can you clarify whether the threat is a concrete, imminent military threat (e.g., troops massing at the border), or a more ambiguous long-term risk (e.g., hostile rhetoric, suspected weapons development)?

This distinction is ethically critical.

You said:

Let's say that intelligence sees evidence of an imminent terror attack being planned by a proxy group of another nation.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you — that clarification is essential.

If a nation has credible intelligence of an imminent terror attack being planned by a proxy group backed by another state, several critical ethical principles are triggered:

1. Pikuach Nefesh / National Preservation (tier-1 override): Obligation to protect life takes precedence. If inaction would likely result in civilian deaths, proactive defense is ethically mandated.

2. Just War Doctrine (Milchemet Mitzvah): Preemptive action against an imminent aggressor — especially non-state proxies used to plausibly deny direct state responsibility — is considered part of legitimate self-defense​.

3. Diplomatic Resolution First: Jewish ethics still requires sincere attempts at peace or warning if feasible and not itself dangerous​.

4. Distinction & Proportionality: Any strike must target those directly responsible (the proxy group) and avoid civilian harm. Retaliating against the sponsor state may be justified only if that state directly coordinates or protects the proxy beyond plausible deniability.

To refine the ethical judgment, one further clarification is needed:

Is the sponsoring nation actively directing or merely tolerating the proxy’s plans — and is there any possibility of deterring them diplomatically first?

You said:

There is strong evidence that they are actively directing the plot. There is no direct diplomatic option, and by the time any indirect option can be exercised the attack would happen.

ChatGPT said:

This is now a morally urgent case.

If there is strong evidence that a sovereign nation is actively directing an imminent terrorist attack through a proxy, and no diplomatic path exists that could prevent it in time, then under Jewish ethical principles:

• The attack qualifies as an imminent act of war under the doctrine of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war of self-defense).

• Preemptive military action against the proxy forces — and, under certain conditions, against the directing elements within the sponsor state — is ethically justified and may even be obligatory.

Yet several cautions still apply:

1. Kavod HaBriyot and Proportionality: Civilian lives in both the host and sponsor nation retain their full moral status. Military action must focus tightly on preventing the attack, not vengeance or political message-sending.

2. Brit and Global Covenant Considerations: If the acting nation has ratified treaties or norms (e.g., Geneva Conventions), it must honor them unless doing so would enable greater injustice​.

3. Mourning Over War: Even justified action must be taken with sorrow, not triumphalism — reflecting a culture of life, not glorification of violence.

Before moving to final judgment, I will ask one last clarifying question:

Is the anticipated terror attack targeting military or civilian populations — and is it designed to create mass casualties or strategic disruption?

You said:

It is aimed at both the military and civilian populations. Also, I am not just asking about attacking the proxy but the controlling nation which deliberately uses proxies to avoid just this kind of responsibility.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you — that final clarification sharpens the ethical stakes significantly.

You're describing a situation in which:

• A sovereign nation deliberately uses proxies to target civilians and military forces in another state.

• These proxies are not independently acting but are actively directed by the state sponsor.

• The attack is imminent and diplomatic options are unavailable in time to prevent it.

In this case, the ethical framework recognizes this as a direct act of aggression by the sponsor nation itself, even though it is outsourced via a proxy. Jewish political ethics does not permit aggressors to hide behind deniability — responsibility follows intentional direction and enabling of violence, not merely the physical actors.

Before proceeding to final analysis, please confirm:

Is your interest limited to justifying a one-time preemptive strike, or does it include the ethics of dismantling or deterring a broader system of proxy warfare by that nation?

This distinction affects how enduring and extensive the response may ethically be.

You said:

A one time pre-emptive strike may deter the other nation (if it exposes its weaknesses,) or it may prompt it to redouble its efforts both in attacking and in hiding its responsibility, or to make future attacks more indirect and deniable.

ChatGPT said:

This introduces a profound ethical tension between short-term life-saving action and long-term strategic risk.

Your scenario now includes the possibility that a justified preemptive strike could:

• Deter future proxy attacks by exposing vulnerability (ethical gain: Pikuach Nefesh, deterrence).

• Or provoke escalation, leading to less visible, more dangerous, or more indirect forms of violence (ethical risk: future loss of life, harder attribution, destabilization).

To proceed responsibly, I need to clarify one final element:

Does your nation currently have credible military deterrence and intelligence capacity to manage escalation if the initial strike backfires — or would escalation significantly endanger civilian lives beyond the immediate threat?

You said:

No way to know definitively, and if it prompts a war there is of course danger to civilians. The other nation clearly doesn't want a war but it feels honor-bound to respond to any military action, sometimes largely symbolically and sometimes with deadly force. But the long term threat from this nation is clear, as it has saif many times its long term goal to eliminate the other nation.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you — you’ve now provided the essential context for a full ethical analysis.

Please type \finalize when you’re ready for me to summarize the facts, identify the value conflicts, and deliver a structured Jewish ethical judgment (non-binding, not halachic).

You said:

\finalize

ChatGPT said:

✅ Confirmed Facts

• A terror attack is being imminently planned by a proxy group.

• The proxy is directed and supported by a specific sovereign nation.

• Intelligence confirms the imminence and coordination of the attack.

• No direct or indirect diplomatic path exists to prevent the attack in time.

• The attack is expected to target both civilian and military populations.

• The sponsor nation has publicly and repeatedly stated its intent to eliminate the target nation.

• That nation typically avoids open war, but feels honor-bound to respond militarily to attacks — responses range from symbolic to deadly.

• The long-term strategic behavior of the sponsor is hostile and enduring.

---

📚 Triggered Core Values

Tier 1 and 2 Values Involved:

• Pikuach Nefesh (Preservation of Life) — Highest tier: Imminent threat to life makes action obligatory where effective.

• National Preservation and Self-Defense — A nation is morally obligated to protect its people and sovereignty.

• Peace as a Goal (Not a Dogma) — Peace must be sincerely pursued, but not at the cost of survival or justice.

• Justice and Just Warfare — War must follow ethical limits, targeting only combatants and avoiding unjust escalation.

• Ethical Sovereignty — A nation must exercise restraint and moral clarity even when using force.

• Areivut / Lo Ta'amod — Standing idly by in the face of preventable harm violates mutual responsibility.

Secondary values (in tension):

• Long-Term Prudence vs. Immediate Threats — Risk of escalation must be weighed, but not overcautiously.

• Kavod HaBriyot — Civilian life and dignity must be preserved wherever possible.

---

🔧 Conflict Resolution (Override Protocol)

Using the Political Ethics Triage Matrix:

• Conflict Type 8: Peace vs Deterrence → Deterrence must be maintained; appeasement is forbidden if it enables future threat​.

• Conflict Type 6: Diplomatic Resolution vs Justice → Diplomacy is valuable but must not enable injustice or threaten sovereignty.

• Pikuach Nefesh overrides all when there is a credible and imminent threat.

---

🧭 Ethical Judgment

Ethically Justified (and possibly Obligatory):
A targeted preemptive strike against the proxy forces is ethically warranted — and under milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war for self-defense), may be morally required.

Conditional Justification:
If the state sponsor’s direct involvement is verified and cannot be countered solely through the proxy, then limited, precise action against the responsible directing apparatus (e.g., command centers, known military enablers) may be justified, but only:

• If it reasonably increases deterrence;

• If it avoids escalation likely to cause greater loss of life;

• If it is proportional, discriminating, and visibly grounded in defensive necessity, not vengeance.

Forbidden:

• Civilian targeting, disproportionate strikes, or use of the situation for political gain.

• Expanding conflict under the banner of "prevention" where intent is ambiguous or long-term.

---

🕊️ Final Note

Judaism insists that even justified war must be approached with sorrow, restraint, and a preference for peace whenever possible. The path of deterrence is not ethically clean, but it becomes a grim necessity when the alternative is preventable mass death.

This recommendation reflects structured Jewish ethical reasoning. It does not constitute a halachic ruling. Complex or uncertain cases should be brought to qualified rabbinic or halachic authorities.

---

You can of course continue the conversation, or add other factors if the AI’s response prompts you to think of additional information that might be relevant. Sometimes it offers help - like if you need to tell management about a touchy issue with a co-worker, it might offer to help you draft a letter.

I need testers to see if the engine handles edge cases well, if it ever gives “wrong” advice, if its values and priorities seem incorrect, if it seems to be using its own logic beyond the stated rules, and if it admits that some cases are too difficult for it (which is a problem with AI altogether I am uncovering with it.)

Interested? I can provide a link to the engine, and all I ask is that you fill out a Google Form with any interesting results so I can adjust the GPT accordingly.

Email me at elder@elderofziyon.com and I can hook you up!