THE COMPANY YOU KEEP
A short play in four traditions and one secular mind - a ~15 minute two-person play (easy to cut to 10, easy to expand to 20). I wrote it so you can stage it with two chairs and a table.
I also kept it fact-safe: the play debates the ethics in general, using the Chomsky/Epstein case as the spark, without inventing private details.
Characters
RIVKA — a religious scholar. Jewish. Calm, sharp, wounded by hypocrisy. JONAH — a secular philosopher. Also Jewish. Wry. Precise. Morally serious.
(Optional: they are colleagues, friends, or siblings. The play works either way.)
Setting
A university office after a public lecture. Two chairs. A small table. Two cups of tea. A stack of books.
Scene 1 — “The Question”
(RIVKA sits with a notebook. JONAH stands, pacing, holding a phone as if he has just read something.)
JONAH - You know what I hate?
RIVKA - You’ll have to narrow it down.
JONAH - I hate when the internet discovers ethics. Like it’s a new app.
RIVKA - And yet you’re here.
JONAH - Because I’m not mad at the question. I’m mad at the… blood sport.
(He sits.)
RIVKA - Say it.
JONAH - The Chomsky thing.
(A beat. RIVKA doesn’t react dramatically — which is its own reaction.)
RIVKA - Ah.
JONAH - The great moral scandal of our time: an old man met a monster and didn’t spit in his face.
RIVKA - Don’t make it small. It’s not small.
JONAH - I’m not making it small. I’m making it accurate.
RIVKA - Accurate is not the same as innocent.
(Pause.)
JONAH - Fine. Here’s the question.
(He leans forward.)
JONAH - Is it ethical to maintain friendship and offer advice to someone convicted of crimes like child trafficking?
RIVKA - No.
JONAH - That was fast.
RIVKA - It’s not a difficult question. It’s only difficult for people who want it to be.
JONAH - Or for people who believe in rehabilitation.
RIVKA - Rehabilitation is not friendship.
JONAH - That’s a line. You’ve been waiting to use that line.
RIVKA - I have been waiting my whole life to use that line.
Scene 2 — “The Religious Scholar”
RIVKA - Let’s begin with the simplest principle.
(She opens her notebook, but she’s not reading — she knows it.)
RIVKA - “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.”
JONAH - Leviticus.
RIVKA - Yes. And don’t tell me you don’t like scripture. You quote philosophers like they’re prophets.
JONAH - Prophets don’t have tenure.
RIVKA - The commandment isn’t poetic. It’s procedural.
(She taps the table.)
RIVKA - If you are in proximity to harm— and you have influence— you do not get to be neutral.
JONAH - But neutrality is not what you’re accusing him of. You’re accusing him of… what? Contamination?
RIVKA - I’m accusing him of laundering.
(A beat.)
JONAH - That’s a heavy word.
RIVKA - It’s the correct word.
JONAH - He didn’t wash his clothes in the man’s sink.
RIVKA - No. He washed the man.
(Silence.)
RIVKA - You know how predators operate. Not just with money. With people. They collect legitimacy. They collect names. They collect the feeling of safety.
JONAH - So your argument is: a famous moral thinker becomes a shield.
RIVKA - Yes.
JONAH - Even if he says nothing publicly?
RIVKA - Especially if he says nothing publicly.
(She leans in.)
RIVKA - Silence is the oldest form of protection.
JONAH - Okay. But Judaism also has teshuvah. Return. Repentance.
RIVKA - It does.
JONAH - So by your own tradition, you can’t say, “This person is forever outside the moral universe.”
RIVKA - I did not say that.
JONAH - You implied it.
RIVKA - No. I implied something much harsher.
JONAH - Which is?
RIVKA - That the moral universe has borders. And some people do not get to stroll across them carrying cocktails and introductions.
Scene 3 — “Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha”
JONAH - Let’s widen it. Not just Judaism. What about Jesus?
RIVKA - Jesus ate with sinners.
JONAH - Exactly.
RIVKA - But he did not eat with sinners to make them feel respectable. He ate with sinners to expose the lie that respectability is holiness.
JONAH - So Jesus would condemn the friendship?
RIVKA - Jesus would ask: “Did you tell him to repent? Did you tell him to repair? Did you tell him to stop?”
JONAH - And if he did?
RIVKA - Then he did not have a friendship. He had a confrontation.
(Beat.)
JONAH - And Muhammad?
RIVKA - The Qur’an says: do not cooperate in sin and aggression.
JONAH - You’re paraphrasing.
RIVKA - I’m a scholar. I’m allowed. Muhammad would say: justice is not optional. And the weak are not an abstraction.
JONAH - So, again: no.
RIVKA - Again: no.
JONAH - And the Buddha?
RIVKA - The Buddha would ask: does this contact reduce suffering?
JONAH - That sounds almost utilitarian.
RIVKA - It is compassionate realism. Not moral theater. And the Buddha would say: if your compassion becomes a tool for harm, it is no longer compassion.
(RIVKA closes her notebook.)
RIVKA - So across traditions— the answer is the same. You may speak to a sinner. You may not provide cover for a predator.
Scene 4 — “The Secular Philosopher”
(JONAH sits back, oddly calm now.)
JONAH - Okay. My turn.
RIVKA - Please.
JONAH - I’m going to say something you won’t like.
RIVKA - I’m a religious scholar. My hobbies include things I don’t like.
JONAH - Good. Here’s the secular view. We live in a society where we have decided that some people are beyond conversation. And the moment we decide that, we are no longer doing ethics. We are doing ritual.
RIVKA - Ritual is not an insult.
JONAH - Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s a way to feel clean without changing anything.
(He leans forward.)
JONAH - You said: “Do not stand idly by.” I agree. But I’m asking: what does “not idly” look like? Does it mean: shun the criminal? Or does it mean: enter the mess and try to reduce harm?
RIVKA - Enter the mess?
JONAH - Yes. You want a secular prophet? Here. John Stuart Mill: the point is the reduction of suffering. Pragmatists like Dewey: ethics is problem-solving, not purity. Restorative justice: punishment alone does not heal. Even Hannah Arendt— who wrote about evil more clearly than almost anyone— warns us about the ease with which society turns ethics into slogans.
RIVKA - You’re building a defense of engagement.
JONAH - I am. Because talking to bad people is not evil. Talking to bad people is often the only way to stop bad things.
RIVKA - You’re describing negotiators.
JONAH - I’m describing human beings.
RIVKA - Then don’t call it friendship.
JONAH - That’s your best argument so far.
(RIVKA smiles, despite herself.)
JONAH - But let’s be honest. The word “friendship” is doing a lot of work here. What if it wasn’t friendship? What if it was: a series of meetings with a disgraced person because the disgraced person had resources and the philosopher had ideas?
RIVKA - Ideas for what?
JONAH - For whatever the disgraced person was trying to do.
(RIVKA watches him carefully.)
RIVKA - Say it.
JONAH - For philanthropy. For “projects.” For reputation. For legacy.
RIVKA - There it is.
JONAH - And here’s the uncomfortable part. If you believe the world is improved by money going to good causes— then you will, at some point, have to deal with dirty money.
RIVKA - Ah. So now we’re laundering again.
JONAH -nMaybe. Or maybe we’re preventing the dirt from spreading.
RIVKA - That’s a clever line.
JONAH - Thank you.
RIVKA - It’s still wrong.
Scene 5 — “Prestige”
RIVKA - Let me ask you something.
JONAH - Go on.
RIVKA - If Chomsky were not famous— if he were just a retired professor with no symbolic power— would anyone care?
JONAH - No.
RIVKA - Exactly. So the moral problem is not contact. The moral problem is prestige.
JONAH - And what do you do with prestige?
RIVKA - You spend it carefully.
JONAH - You can also spend it strategically.
RIVKA - Strategically?
JONAH - Yes. If your prestige can pressure a monster toward repair, toward restitution, toward supporting victims, toward confession—
RIVKA - Confession.
JONAH —then your prestige is being used for good.
RIVKA - And if it is being used as a shield?
JONAH - Then it’s wrong.
RIVKA - So we agree.
(A beat. JONAH pauses.)
JONAH - We agree in theory. We disagree in practice.
RIVKA - Meaning?
JONAH - Meaning you assume the worst: that contact always benefits the predator. And I assume the possibility— small, rare, fragile— that contact can sometimes reduce harm.
RIVKA - You are an optimist.
JONAH - No. I am a pessimist who refuses ritual.
Scene 6 — “The Child”
(RIVKA stands. The tone shifts. Less academic.)
RIVKA - Let’s stop hiding behind frameworks. Let’s name it. Child trafficking.
(JONAH looks down.)
RIVKA - Jesus says: whoever harms a child—
JONAH - I know.
RIVKA - Judaism says: do not stand idly by.
JONAH - I know.
RIVKA - Islam says: do not cooperate in sin and aggression.
JONAH - I know.
RIVKA - The Buddha says: do not increase suffering.
JONAH - I know.
RIVKA - So why are we even debating?
(JONAH stands too.)
JONAH — Because ethics is not the same as disgust. Because if disgust becomes our only compass, we will burn the world down and call it virtue. Because the question isn’t: “Is the predator disgusting?” The question is: “What does a moral person do when the predator is already in the room?”
RIVKA - You remove him.
JONAH - And if you can’t?
RIVKA - Then you stop pretending you’re his friend.
Scene 7 — “The Final Test”
JONAH - Alright. One last test. Imagine you are Chomsky. You believe the world is filled with state violence, propaganda, hypocrisy. You believe the powerful are protected. Then a wealthy man says: “I want to talk to you. I want your advice.” And you know he is a criminal. What do you do?
RIVKA - You tell him: confess. repair. stop. turn yourself in.
JONAH - And if he doesn’t?
RIVKA - Then you leave.
JONAH - And if leaving changes nothing?
RIVKA - Leaving changes you.
JONAH - That’s the purity argument.
RIVKA - No. It’s the integrity argument.
JONAH - Integrity is just purity with better branding.
RIVKA - And pragmatism is just surrender with better footnotes.
(They stare at each other. A smile almost breaks.)
Scene 8 — “Kaddish / Silence”
(RIVKA sits again, suddenly tired.)
RIVKA - You know what’s missing from your secular list?
JONAH - God?
RIVKA - Shame. Not public shaming. Not Twitter. The quiet shame that says: “I should not be here.”
JONAH - Shame is not an ethical system.
RIVKA - No. It’s a warning system.
(Pause.)
JONAH - You know what’s missing from your scriptures?
RIVKA - Go ahead.
JONAH - Evidence.
(RIVKA laughs — once, sharply.)
RIVKA - You’re cruel.
JONAH - I’m Jewish. It’s hereditary.
(Beat.)
RIVKA - Let me say the cleanest version. You can meet with a sinner. But when the sinner is a predator, and your name is a credential, your meeting is never private. Your presence is a public act.
JONAH - And let me say mine. If we make contact itself immoral, we destroy the possibility of transformation. We turn justice into exile. And we will still have predators— only now they will operate without anyone willing to enter the room.
Scene 9 — “The Verdict”
(They sit. A long pause.)
RIVKA - So what is the verdict?
JONAH - There isn’t one.
RIVKA - That’s cowardice.
JONAH - No. That’s honesty.
(He looks at her.)
JONAH - Here’s my verdict. If the advice helped him evade consequences, it was wrong. If the advice helped him gain legitimacy, it was wrong. If the advice helped him harm more people, it was evil. But if the advice pushed him toward repair— toward restitution— toward stopping harm—
RIVKA - Then it would have been ethical.
JONAH - Yes.
(RIVKA nods slowly.)
RIVKA - And my verdict. If you choose to meet the monster, you must speak like a prophet, not like a colleague. You must speak like Jesus with the whip, not Jesus at dinner. You must speak like the Qur’an’s demand for justice, not like a polite neighbor. You must speak like the Buddha’s clarity, not like a therapist. And you must remember Leviticus: Do not stand idly by.
Scene 10 — “Last Line”
(JONAH stands, picks up his phone again. He reads silently. Then he looks up.)
JONAH - You know what the internet is asking?
RIVKA - What?
JONAH - They’re asking: “How could someone so smart be so naive?”
RIVKA - And?
JONAH - I think that’s the wrong question.
RIVKA - What’s the right one?
(A beat.)
JONAH - How could someone so smart believe he was the one giving advice?
(Blackout.)
END
——————
APPENDIX
below is the conversation I had with ChatGPT on how to design the play
what I want to do is have two people debating the ethics of Chomsky's behavior. The main question seems to be - is it ethical to maintain friendship and offer advice to people convicted of unsavory crimes like child trafficking?
YES. That’s a fantastic framing — and it instantly turns this from “celebrity scandal theater” into real moral philosophy on stage.
And you’re exactly right: the core question isn’t “Did Chomsky do X?” It’s:
What do we owe the world when we knowingly stay close to a monster?
And even sharper:
Is moral contamination real — or is that just performative guilt?
🎭 A 2-Person Debate Play (Perfect Format)
Cast
• A = “The Ethicist of Contamination” (argues: association is morally compromising, gives cover, normalizes harm)
• B = “The Ethicist of Engagement” (argues: talking to bad people isn’t endorsement; we don’t exile humans from moral conversation)
They can be:
• two friends,
• a journalist + professor,
• two academics,
• two activists,
• or even two parts of one mind (super theatrical).
🔥 The central ethical dilemma (your exact one)
Is it ethical to maintain friendship and offer advice to people convicted of child trafficking?
But here’s the twist that makes the play snap:
It’s not only friendship.
It’s friendship + prestige.
The moment a famous intellectual is in the orbit, the criminal gains:
• legitimacy
• access
• protection
• “I’m not that bad, look who talks to me”
• social laundering
That’s the moral bomb.
🧠 The play’s BEST tension
You don’t want it to be:
• “One side good, one side bad.”
You want:
• both sides landing punches,
• both sides exposing hypocrisy,
• both sides occasionally being right.
Because the audience should leave uncomfortable.
🎬 Here’s a GREAT structure (10–12 minutes)
Scene 1 — “The Question”
One character brings it up bluntly:
“Is it ethical to advise a child trafficker?”
The other character flinches:
“You’re already loading the question.”
Scene 2 — “The Logic”
They debate:
• moral duty
• complicity
• what counts as endorsement
• what counts as harm
Scene 3 — “The Prestige”
One character says:
“The advice isn’t the problem. The problem is: you’re lending your name.”
Scene 4 — “The Verdict That Isn’t One”
They reach a stalemate. Then one final line breaks the audience’s comfort.
💥 Killer lines you can build around
Here are some lines that will absolutely hit on stage:
Side A (contamination)
• “Friendship is not neutral. Friendship is a public resource.”
• “You don’t get to be morally famous and socially careless.”
• “You weren’t talking to him in a vacuum. You were talking to him in history.”
• “Your presence is a disinfectant he didn’t deserve.”
Side B (engagement)
• “If you banish every criminal from conversation, you’ve built a world with no rehabilitation.”
• “Moral purity is not morality. It’s theater.”
• “I can condemn what someone did without pretending they are no longer human.”
• “Do you want justice or do you want exile?”
🧨 The hardest question (and the best one)
This is the question that makes the play really sting:
Did the friendship harm victims?
Not emotionally. Not symbolically.
Materially. Did it help him:
• gain access to money?
• gain access to credibility?
• gain access to institutions?
• avoid consequences?
That’s the ethical core.
🎭 My recommendation for tone
I’d write this as:
Intense, smart, and slightly funny
Not comedy — but the kind of intellectual sparring where the audience laughs because the truth is sharp.
Like The Social Network energy, but moral.
If you want, I can write the full script right now.
Before I do, pick one of these (super quick):
1) Style
• A) Serious courtroom-style debate
• B) Casual coffee shop argument
• C) Two academics at a lecture podium
• D) Surreal: one is “The Conscience” and one is “The Rationalization”
2) Length
• 5 minutes (~4 pages)
• 10 minutes (~8 pages)
• 20 minutes (~15–18 pages)
If you choose, I’ll draft it in one shot and you can revise from there.
yes I see you understand what I need. What I am hoping for is religious references drawn from scriptures. here's three questions 1) what would Jesus say about the situation? would he criticize or defend Chomsky's behavior, or somewhere in-between? 2) What would Muhammed say? 3) what would the Buddha say?
Oh I love this. Because once you bring scripture into it, the debate stops being “Chomsky vs. Epstein” and becomes:
What does holiness do when it stands next to evil?
And yes — you can absolutely write this as two people arguing, each one quoting scripture like weapons.
Below are very plausible “scriptural positions” for each figure. (Not fake quotes — real themes and real passages.)
1) ✝️ What would Jesus say?
Jesus would NOT be impressed by “respectable proximity” to a predator.
Jesus is famous for eating with “sinners,” but the key detail is:
He does not offer them prestige.
He calls them to repentance.
Jesus might defend speaking to Epstein…
Because Jesus speaks to sinners constantly:
• “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)
• The lost sheep / lost coin / prodigal son (Luke 15)
…but Jesus would likely criticize friendship-as-normalization.
Because Jesus is also brutally harsh toward:
• hypocrisy
• social cover
• exploitation
• harm to children
The most relevant line is the nuclear one:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble… it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck.” (Matthew 18:6 / Mark 9:42)
Jesus also repeatedly condemns religious and moral elites who “look clean” while enabling harm:
• “Whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23)
So Jesus’ likely verdict:
Somewhere in-between.
• Talking to him? Possible.
• Advising him privately? Only if it’s repentance and repair.
• Maintaining a comfortable friendship? Jesus would almost certainly condemn it.
• Offering prestige to someone who harmed children? Hard no.
2) ☪️ What would Muhammad say?
Islamic ethics is extremely strong on two things that matter here:
(1) Justice is mandatory
(2) Do not help wrongdoing
There are Qur’anic principles that cut right to your play’s dilemma:
Do not assist evil
“Do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Stand firmly for justice
“O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice…” (Qur’an 4:135)
Protecting the vulnerable is central
A huge amount of Islamic teaching emphasizes protection of:
• orphans
• the weak
• those without power
And Islam is also very explicit about public moral accountability.
But there’s also room for repentance.
Islam strongly supports the idea that people can repent (tawbah). But repentance is not “I’m still a respectable guy.” It is:
• remorse
• stopping the harm
• restitution when possible
So Muhammad’s likely verdict:
• Speaking to a criminal in order to stop harm or guide repentance? Yes.
• Maintaining friendship that grants legitimacy? No.
• Remaining neutral in the face of exploitation? No.
• Advising someone convicted of child trafficking in a way that benefits them? Clearly unethical.
Muhammad’s stance would likely be more justice-forward and less tolerant of “moral ambiguity” than Jesus’ tone, but with the same basic conclusion.
3) ☸️ What would the Buddha say?
This is where it gets really interesting, because Buddhism approaches it differently.
The Buddha is not a “judge” in the Abrahamic sense. He’s a physician of suffering.
So he’d likely ask:
“Does this relationship increase suffering or reduce it?”
Core Buddhist principles you can use:
Right Speech
Is the speech:
• truthful?
• beneficial?
• timely?
• motivated by compassion?
Right Action / Right Livelihood
Are you participating in a system that harms beings?
Karma & proximity
Buddhism is very clear that:
• actions have consequences
• association shapes the mind
There’s a famous theme: keep good company. Bad company leads to delusion.
But Buddhism also contains many stories of the Buddha teaching criminals.
The Buddha teaches:
• killers
• thieves
• corrupt rulers
Not because they “deserve” it — but because reducing harm matters.
So Buddha’s likely verdict:
• Talking to Epstein to reduce harm or encourage transformation? Yes.
• Maintaining friendship out of ego, fascination, or access? No.
• Being naive about how your presence empowers him? That’s delusion.
• The key sin is not “impurity,” it’s ignorance + attachment.
The Buddha would likely say:
“You are not helping him. You are feeding him.”
And:
“If your compassion becomes a tool for harm, it is no longer compassion.”
🎭 How this helps your play (really cleanly)
You can have each debater “summon” a tradition.
One character argues:
Jesus / Muhammad / Buddha would say:
“Do not grant legitimacy to a child trafficker.”
The other argues:
Jesus / Muhammad / Buddha would say:
“Even the worst human is not beyond moral engagement.”
And the play becomes:
Not “is Chomsky bad?”
but
“What is the ethical form of contact with evil?”
If you want, I can now do the next step:
Write a 10-minute two-person script
Where each person quotes scripture and argues:
• Jesus vs Jesus
• Qur’an vs Qur’an
• Buddha vs Buddha
That would be extremely theatrical and intellectually delicious.
Want it to be: (A) serious and reverent, or (B) sharp and a little funny (like an academic knife fight)?
Also - both Chomsky and Epstein are Jewish. So - can I have a #4 point of view - the judaic POV?
Oh YES — and honestly, Judaism might be the most dramatically interesting POV for your piece, because it has very developed ethics about:
• justice
• protecting the vulnerable
• communal responsibility
• and (this is huge) “not enabling wrongdoing”
…and it also has a deep tradition of debating exactly these questions in public.
Here’s a very usable Judaic POV for your play.
4) ✡️ What would a Judaic POV say?
Judaism would likely split into two powerful arguments, both rooted in scripture and rabbinic ethics.
A) The “Justice / Do Not Enable” Position
This side would be very hard on Chomsky.
1) Protecting children is absolute
The Torah and later Jewish ethics are relentless about protecting the vulnerable.
2) You may not stand by while harm happens
This is one of the most famous Jewish ethical commands:
“Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:16)
In a modern context, that can be read as:
If you have knowledge, influence, or prestige, you have responsibility.
3) Enabling is a sin
Judaism has a concept often summarized as:
Do not put a stumbling block before the blind (Leviticus 19:14)
Rabbinic tradition extends this beyond literal blindness to mean:
• don’t enable wrongdoing
• don’t assist someone in sin
• don’t help them evade consequences
So the argument would be:
“If your friendship helps him look respectable, you are placing a stumbling block.”
4) Justice matters more than politeness
Judaism has a fierce prophetic tradition:
• Isaiah
• Amos
• Jeremiah
They repeatedly condemn elites who keep social order while ignoring victims.
So the Judaic “prosecution” side would say:
“You didn’t have to commit the crime to become part of the moral scandal.”
B) The “Teshuvah / No Human is Beyond Return” Position
This side could defend the idea of engagement.
Judaism has a massive concept called:
Teshuvah = repentance / return
The tradition teaches that even great wrongdoing does not make someone non-human.
And Judaism is also very skeptical of performative moral purity.
So this side might argue:
• It is not forbidden to speak to criminals
• It is not forbidden to urge them toward repair
• It is not forbidden to believe in transformation
But the key: Teshuvah is not comfort. It’s not “still being invited to salons.”
Teshuvah requires:
• confession
• remorse
• stopping harm
• restitution when possible
So this side might defend Chomsky only if the relationship is framed as:
“I spoke to him as a human being, but never as a respectable peer.”
✡️ So what would Judaism likely conclude?
Judaism would probably land on a very strong middle position:
✅ You can speak to a sinner.
❌ You cannot grant them cover.
❌ You cannot stay neutral when you have moral power.
✅ If the purpose is teshuvah and repair, engagement is possible.
❌ If the purpose is access, ego, money, or prestige, it’s unethical.
🎭 Why this is GOLD for theater
Because Judaism is already structured like a play:
• argument
• counterargument
• interpretation
• the clash of principles
Your two characters can literally argue like Talmudic voices.
One can say:
“Leviticus says you can’t stand idly by.”
The other can say:
“Yes — and the tradition also teaches teshuvah.”
And the audience realizes:
The tradition doesn’t give a clean answer.
It gives a responsibility to argue honestly.
Which is exactly what your play is.
If you want, I can now write you a tight “four traditions” debate script where each character:
• alternates traditions,
• steals arguments from the other,
• and ends with a final moral punchline.
(And I can keep it respectful while still intense.)
Is there any secular philosophy that would be neutral or supportive of Chomsky's assistance?
Yes — absolutely. There are several secular ethical frameworks that would be neutral, or even actively supportive, of Chomsky maintaining contact or offering advice to someone like Epstein (even someone convicted of horrific crimes)— as long as the advice isn’t helping them continue harm or evade justice.
Here are the strongest ones for your play:
1) Liberal / Due Process Ethics
This view says:
• even the worst person still has rights
• being a criminal doesn’t make someone socially untouchable
• moral panic and social exile are dangerous
So it would defend Chomsky by saying:
“Talking is not endorsement. A society that bans conversation is not a free society.”
2) Utilitarianism (Consequences First)
This one is very theater-friendly because it’s cold and sharp.
Utilitarianism asks:
Did the contact reduce harm, increase harm, or do nothing?
If Chomsky’s contact:
• encouraged Epstein to donate to legitimate causes,
• cooperate with authorities,
• stop predatory behavior,
• or support victims financially,
…then utilitarianism could argue:
“The moral duty is to reduce suffering, even if the person is disgusting.”
But if the contact:
• improved Epstein’s reputation,
• helped him network,
• gave him social cover,
then utilitarianism flips hard against it.
3) Restorative Justice / Rehabilitation Ethics
This is a major secular framework today.
It says:
• punishment alone doesn’t heal society
• people should be pushed toward accountability
• reintegration is part of justice
So it could defend the principle of engagement, saying:
“If we want people to change, we have to allow them to be addressed as humans.”
But it would still condemn:
• secrecy
• prestige-laundering
• “friendship” that avoids accountability
4) Existentialism / Humanism
This one fits Chomsky’s vibe, honestly.
It says:
• humans are responsible for choices
• you don’t erase someone’s humanity
• moral action can’t be outsourced to social consensus
So a humanist defense could sound like:
“If I refuse contact, I am not being moral — I am being clean.”
5) Pragmatism (Dewey-style)
This is a very Chomsky-adjacent intellectual tradition.
Pragmatism says:
• ethics is not purity
• ethics is problem-solving
• the question is: what works to reduce harm?
So it would defend contact if it was:
• strategically useful
• harm-reducing
• aimed at real-world outcomes
The best secular “pro-Chomsky” line for your play
Here’s the line that a secular defender can say that will hit HARD:
“Morality isn’t refusing to touch the dirty. Morality is preventing the dirt from spreading.”
And the best counter-line:
“And sometimes touching the dirty is exactly how it spreads.”
If you want, I can now give you a tight list of 10 secular quotes / paraphrasable principles (Mill, Dewey, Arendt, Camus, etc.) that your two characters can wield like scripture.
this is what I would like - the debate is between a religious scholar and a secular philosopher who uses the quotes you mention above. Can you write a 10-20 play that covers this topic?
Absolutely. And this setup is killer: a religious scholar vs. a secular philosopher — scripture vs. ethics — both trying to answer the same horrible question.