Jewish Ethics Breaks Every Universal Ethical Rule. That's a Good Thing.

From Kiddush Hashem to Granfalloons—A Blueprint for True Pluralism

Jewish particularism is often accused of being parochial or exclusionary. But in a world obsessed with universalism, maybe particularism is what we need most.

Many thinkers have noted how Judaism is a particularistic belief system, which is in tension with the universalistic thinking of most popular ethical systems. This is probably one reason why Jewish ethics does not receive the same amount of attention in the academy: universalism is considered so obviously superior because it treats all people equally, and Jewish style parochialism - where only Jews have a covenantal relationship with God - is considered gauche.

In my project to come up with a secularized Jewish ethical system - a universal, testable and open system that can handle any situation with alacrity - I have to deal with this concept: how do you secularize Jewish-style particularism?

I believe the answer is that it is not only possible, but it is a necessary counterweight to what I would call "naive universalism," the "Imagine"-type ideal of one world where there is no religion, no possessions, and "the world can live as one."

One problem with universalistic ethics is that Jews are a glaring violator of their rules. They have their own rules, their own identity, their own state, and their own sense of ethics that precede and outperform universalistic ethics. Whether they admit it or not, this can fuel antisemitism since Jews don't "fit" in their idealized world.

The key to making particularism universal is the Jewish concept of kiddush Hashem, translated as "sanctifying the Name of God." In vernacular, this means always acting in an exemplary manner in front of non-Jews. Jews know, better than anyone, how people tend to stereotype based on how one or very few members of a group behave. If we act nobly, we are a kiddush Hashem, if we act badly, it is a "chilul Hashem."

This idea can easily be extended to any defined group of people. Black people know very well that how they act individually affects how they are perceived as a group. The same goes other minorities, women, and even disabled people. If you are identifiable, like it or not, you are a symbol.

This reality is not generally accepted in universalist ethics. Since everyone should treat everyone equally, when they don't it is only a problem for the bigot, not for the victim. Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect real life.

Jewish ethics reflects the world as it is, not as John Lennon wants it to be.

When you extend the concept of "kiddush Hashem" to all groups, you are dealing with reality. Being a member of a defined group brings additional responsibilities, whether we like it or not. So there is an additional moral responsibility for every member to act as nobly as possible, especially in public, and avoid shaming their group.

This is the beginning of universalizing particularism - or, as I would call it, true pluralism. It is recognizing that not everyone is the same, that there are lots of groups that people belong to, and that this membership brings both the benefits (of community) and responsibilities.

Responsibilities are the key. It isn't only that the Jews consider themselves the "chosen people" - it is that they cannot be un-chosen. They are morally obligated to hold themselves to a higher standard. I can list many Jewish values that also apply to the world, but there are hundreds of commandments that Jews are expected to fulfill that non-Jews are not.

And this is how to truly universalize the concept.

Other groups can - and should - feel like they have something unique to teach the world. Every group has admirable values - as a group - that they emphasize more than other groups. Arabs are unparalleled in how well they treat their guests. The Japanese are known for how respectful they are. Germans are precise and punctual, Americans are innovative. These are admirable cultural and moral traits and they can be object lessons in improving ourselves.

In short, everyone can be a "light unto the nations." This is part of the responsibility of being a member of a group: to increase respect for your group with your own particular emphases of morality and culture.

There are practical benefits, that again universalism would deny -0 or prefer not to - exist. It is that people naturally feel closer to their own people than to others', they will tend to prioritize helping out their own before the rest of the world. This is not an immoral violation of universal principles, it is a quite moral obligation of building community and heling out those closest to you before everyone else in the world.

If you universalize particularism, you end up with a much richer world than that of naive universalism.

We can even go beyond this. People in the majority culture will gravitate towards being members of groups too. Some of them are because they live in a certain place, some because they share interests, some because they were in the same place at the same time like school or the army. And some will make up their own groups like Daughters of the American Revolution or Rotary Club.

Kurt Vonnegut scornfully called some of the more arbitrary groups "granfalloons" because they created commonalities when there really is none - "Hoosiers," for example. But he is wrong: a community is whatever people want it to be.

The question is - do they want it to be a force for good, besides the benefits of comradeship? The Kiwanis Club helps children; there is no reason that Boston Red Sox fans cannot also visit nursing homes - and therefore make a "kiddush Hashem" for all Red Sox fans.

When you prioritize duties over rights, as Jewish ethics does, then your communities do the same. And that enriches everyone.

To be sure, there is a difference between groups you voluntarily join and those you are born into. But even when identity is imposed, there remains a real, if hard-won, choice: how to respond, what to do with the cards you’re dealt.

The Jewish story, after all, is one of centuries of persecution against their particularism - being marked, excluded, and defined from the outside. But the response wasn’t just to endure; it was to turn even an imposed identity into an opportunity for purpose, ethical action, and kiddush Hashem.

That’s a lesson available to anyone, in any group. Even if you aren't one of the "chosen people" you can still choose how to represent your people in a positive way.

When you look at our response to being a member of your community as a choice, then perhaps you can see that anyone - minority or not - can choose to build their communities as centers of kindness and charity and moral actions. We cannot always choose to be members of groups but we cn sure choose how to make the best of that community.

Old-school nationalism does the same for majority or “historic” status. But Jewish tradition - and, potentially, any group that rises to the challenge - says: Don’t rest on your identity. Do something to make it honorable and noble.

This is where naive universalism falls apart. Naive universalism pretends everyone is (or should be) the same, that group identities are ultimately obstacles to peace, or that difference is only valuable when erased. Today’s progressivism often sanctifies minority status as inherently virtuous no matter what their actions.

I'm proposing true pluralism. not only recognizing differences. Jewish particularism is based on the idea of a covenant between Jews and God that govern their relationship. What if every group had a tacit covenantal agreement with each member: every member is expected to act in ways that reflect well on the group as a whole. Every group, if it wants to matter, should not only embrace its particularism but also turn it into an engine for ethical action, self-critique, and blessing for others. Not “all groups are good because they exist,” but “all groups can be good if they rise to the moral challenge of being a responsible group.”

Groups exist whether we like it or not. Prejudice exists and it isn't going away. Extending the Jewish ethical model, based on kiddush Hashem as well as other responsibilities to the community ("All Israel is responsible for one another,") is a way to turn what has been seen as a necessary evil into a positive model for every group to be proud.

When you recognize the world as it is, you can start to map the way to get to the world you want it to be.