Analysis Of Rabi Lapin's The Awakening

Entropy is the increase in disorder of the universe, and is considered to be natural. According to Rabi Lapin, it relates to social decay because it is the moral disorder of the universe; he states that this disorder can only be “defeated...by God” (1), who is believed to be the moral all-mighty. Lapin argues that only God can reverse entropy but that certain actions by human communities can create “light”, thus partially defeating entropy. If there is only entropy, society would decay. I do agree with his analogy because entropy refers to the development of disorder, that is inevitably forming - small actions, such as the organization of animals into higher level of categories, is known to have a negative entropy, such as the “light” Lapin

mentioned.

What does Rabbi Lapin mean when he writes, “the fuel that used to keep the airplane of society airborne has run out?” and, which literary device is he using here?

When Lapin wrote, “the fuel that used to keep the airplane of society airborne has run out,” he means, figuratively, that the lack of fuel has caused the airplane to fall. This is a metaphor to society - the fuel represents societal productivity and the factors that have caused to keep society “prosperous” (2), and that now productivity and moral values (in his reference to illegitimacy) have decreased, the airplane/society has decayed.

Rabbi Lapin regrets that we have failed to continue using certain “moral weapons.” What are these and what does he suggest we use them to fight against?

The moral weapons are disapproval, ostracism, and other social sanctions against individuals who have committed moral crimes. He suggests that we use these weapons to fight against people who cause shame to others (for example, the teenage pregnant girl).

On which three grounds does he argue ostracism and moral censure should still be used

today?
The first ground that he uses is that in the past, people maintained proper connections between each other due to censure and the other moral weapons - that the moral weapons were used successfully in the past. The second ground is that these “social sanctions” have more pros than cons. The third ground is that these moral weapons are necessary, and even used by the liberals that decry them.

When discussing the “community of generations,” Rabbi Lapin justifies how shame is acceptable even if it affects innocent relatives and children. How does he justify this transmission of blame?
Lapin justifies this transmission of blame by stating that shame is passed down from ancestors to predecessors - thus an act of shame causes dishonor on the entire family. This is true especially true in society where both positive and negative achievements, such as wealth, impact one’s children and grandchildren. Therefore, blame, which is in a way an “achievement” should also be passed down to relatives and children, even if they are innocent. He also justifies the transmission of blame by stating “people care more about their loved ones more than themselves” (2). Therefore, upon shaming the child, you’re allowing both the mother and child to be ostracized so their relationship will be fruitful.

Use one of his examples to explain Rabbi Lapin’s criticism of liberal reluctance to use shaming as a means of exerting social control.
One example refers to when liberals attack smokers. Liberals, despite stating that they are reluctant to use shame because they believe innocents will be hurt, readily use shame as a means to exert social control against smokers. They attack large corporations, unintentionally hurting thousands of innocent workers whose living standards are destroyed by the attacks on the companies. But even when the liberals are made aware of what the unintentional effects are, they use a simple pro-con analysis in their actions, stating that it is necessary to “send a message” (3) by attacking all involved, almost implying that nobody is innocent. Lapin criticizes this action because this is a clear example of ostracism (of the individuals who smoke in society, as well as all those related and involved with them), yet the Liberals often rebuke traditionalists for advocating ostracism - when they are quite obviously using it themselves.

What is your response to this article?

Do you tend to side with Lapin or against him? Why?

Moral sanctions are a necessary framework for society - morals form the framework of our actions, beliefs, and perspectives. Without morals, it is true that social decay will occur, where no individual is truly able to state what is “moral” and what is “unjust”. The lack of differentiation between the two would surely lead to pandemonium. Lapin argues that today, our society has “ran out of fuel”, as shown through higher rates of illegitimacy and crime. However, Lapin’s statement that moral sanctions should be utilized in the form of moral weapons is a statement I disagree with.

The main grounds on which I disagree with are the “community of generations” and that ostracism is necessary to maintain “proper ties between…[members of a] community”. White Privilege and socioeconomic privileges are a common topic in media networks, particularly on Facebook and Twitter. Individuals who benefit from their parents’ statuses who succeed are seen as undeserving because of this. Yet equal opportunities are impossible to create - it is inevitable that what our parents and grandparents have done will impact us, in terms of socioeconomic and cultural impacts. By destroying the connection between generations, there will be surely be a lack of distinguishable of culture, which is a trademark of society. However, Lapin’s claim that shame should be passed down is partially incorrect. In both positive and

negative “achievements”, the individual must prove themself to the next generation of individuals so that they are properly treated as who they are, rather than who their parents were. However, the application of this idea is much more difficult than is simply stating it.
One particular point I found interesting about Lapin’s argument was his constant examples of modern-day ostracism that aren’t particularly noticeable. For example, the ostracizing of an unwed teenage mother is outwardly seen as ostracizing the individual; however, less direct examples such as excluding a person from an individual are ostracisms in their own right. I found it interesting how Lapin used those examples to support his argument against his critics.