Is it ethical to be weak or helpless?

[Hard Truth]

If we imagine a disaster of most types it is easy to imagine who is most likely to survive-the stronger, healthier people wearing practical clothes for their environment. Some of those less likely to be survive are the very young, the elderly sick and disabled. But let's consider the others who are less likely to survive-those who are obese, those without any physical strength and those who wear less practical clothes. In a way they are voluntarily weak and/or relatively helpless. It may or not be necessary for others to provide assistance for these people. Is it ethical for the voluntarily weak and/or helpless people to put others into the position of having to rescue them? Does it depend on the situation?

We can start with an extreme situation. A group is taking a hike up a mountain. Some of the hikers show up with appropriate clothes, but despite the warnings, some of them decided to prioritize looking good instead. Some of the women are wearing high heels, skirts, pantyhose, and silk blouses. Some of the men wore business suits with thin sole Italian shoes. There is also a contingent of fat people, an anorexic, a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans and a few couch potatoes and nerds. Before the hike starts the leader reminds everyone that the trail is rough, the temperature could change and there might be mountain lions. He tells them that they are free to opt out of the hike if they don't feel up for it. Despite the warnings, everyone goes on the hike.

1. Halfway through the hike, the less fit and inappropriately dressed people want to go back because they are too uncomfortable and tired. If some go back, they all must go back. Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to ruin the hike for the rest of the group?

2. A storm comes and washes away the trail. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed ones over the section that they can't handle? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

Now, back at the office, an earthquake or storm causes the building to collapse. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed (for a disaster) ones out of the building? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

 

[GottaGo]

My quick answer is when their unwillingness (NOT inability) to be self sufficient infringes on the ability of others to be self sufficient.

 

[Fisher]

Depends on the situation, but if somebody shows up to a hike in hooker heels, they get what they deserve even without the disaster.

Not everyone can be self-sufficient, and disasters are not always predictable.

 

[specklebang]

It's really hard to predict what will be necessary. I do own some things that might be useful for my survival under certain circumstances. But how much preparing is enough?

In a predictable situation (the hiker in high heels), the group members should have dissuaded her. That would be how they prepared. That's a communal responsibility.

But lets say it's something unexpected. Lets say there are riots. Should I be expected to own a gun? A gas mask? A generator? A helicopter?

Everyone has some element of responsibility but resolutions must be communal. For example, my friend Tom owns several guns and he will lend me one if needed. I have an inventory of pain pills. If Tom is injured, I will give him some.

 

[Moot]

You're talking about a day hike, right? And there's a group leader, right? Traditionally, the group leader is responsible for the safety of everyone in the group and making sure everyone has water and there aren't any stragglers on the trail. The group leader is also responsible for checking the weather and in this case it doesn't sound like he did. So technically, he put everyone's safety in danger before the hike even started. So yes, he should help everyone get to safety.

 

[ecofarm]

a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans

Not all vegans are skinny hipsters.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

You're talking about a day hike, right? And there's a group leader, right? Traditionally, the group leader is responsible for the safety of everyone in the group and making sure everyone has water and there aren't any stragglers on the trail. The group leader is also responsible for checking the weather and in this case it doesn't sound like he did. So technically, he put everyone's safety in danger before the hike even started. So yes, he should help everyone get to safety.

So, when you say this "group leader" is responsible for helping "everyone" get to safety, would that be everyone everyone, or just "those who need help" everyone, and screw helping the rest?

 

[Mycroft]

If we imagine a disaster of most types it is easy to imagine who is most likely to survive-the stronger, healthier people wearing practical clothes for their environment. Some of those less likely to be survive are the very young, the elderly sick and disabled. But let's consider the others who are less likely to survive-those who are obese, those without any physical strength and those who wear less practical clothes. In a way they are voluntarily weak and/or relatively helpless. It may or not be necessary for others to provide assistance for these people. Is it ethical for the voluntarily weak and/or helpless people to put others into the position of having to rescue them? Does it depend on the situation?

We can start with an extreme situation. A group is taking a hike up a mountain. Some of the hikers show up with appropriate clothes, but despite the warnings, some of them decided to prioritize looking good instead. Some of the women are wearing high heels, skirts, pantyhose, and silk blouses. Some of the men wore business suits with thin sole Italian shoes. There is also a contingent of fat people, an anorexic, a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans and a few couch potatoes and nerds. Before the hike starts the leader reminds everyone that the trail is rough, the temperature could change and there might be mountain lions. He tells them that they are free to opt out of the hike if they don't feel up for it. Despite the warnings, everyone goes on the hike.

1. Halfway through the hike, the less fit and inappropriately dressed people want to go back because they are too uncomfortable and tired. If some go back, they all must go back. Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to ruin the hike for the rest of the group?

2. A storm comes and washes away the trail. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed ones over the section that they can't handle? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

Now, back at the office, an earthquake or storm causes the building to collapse. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed (for a disaster) ones out of the building? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

The group leader should have refused to let those who were unprepared/unfit to start the hike in the first place. That is my reaction to your hypothetical hiking scenario.

The fit and prepared people are not morally obligated to rescue the weak and unprepared people. That is my reaction to your hypothetical building disaster scenario.

On the other hand, people are generally good and will help their fellow idiots.

 

[Hypersonic]

If we imagine a disaster of most types it is easy to imagine who is most likely to survive-the stronger, healthier people wearing practical clothes for their environment. Some of those less likely to be survive are the very young, the elderly sick and disabled. But let's consider the others who are less likely to survive-those who are obese, those without any physical strength and those who wear less practical clothes. In a way they are voluntarily weak and/or relatively helpless. It may or not be necessary for others to provide assistance for these people. Is it ethical for the voluntarily weak and/or helpless people to put others into the position of having to rescue them? Does it depend on the situation?

We can start with an extreme situation. A group is taking a hike up a mountain. Some of the hikers show up with appropriate clothes, but despite the warnings, some of them decided to prioritize looking good instead. Some of the women are wearing high heels, skirts, pantyhose, and silk blouses. Some of the men wore business suits with thin sole Italian shoes. There is also a contingent of fat people, an anorexic, a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans and a few couch potatoes and nerds. Before the hike starts the leader reminds everyone that the trail is rough, the temperature could change and there might be mountain lions. He tells them that they are free to opt out of the hike if they don't feel up for it. Despite the warnings, everyone goes on the hike.

1. Halfway through the hike, the less fit and inappropriately dressed people want to go back because they are too uncomfortable and tired. If some go back, they all must go back. Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to ruin the hike for the rest of the group?

2. A storm comes and washes away the trail. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed ones over the section that they can't handle? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

Now, back at the office, an earthquake or storm causes the building to collapse. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed (for a disaster) ones out of the building? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

Depends on the situation. You have those who are content with being weak and helpless because they know that they'll receive help regardless hence the notion of opportunistic con artist who utilize societal empathy to gain what they want. However you have those in legitimate circumstances where it test our resolve and humane character in helping those less fortunate.

My quick answer is when their unwillingness (NOT inability) to be self sufficient infringes on the ability of others to be self sufficient.

But even those that need help (legitimately) depending on the circumstance it may infringe on our autonomy whether we want it to or not.

 

[Hard Truth]

Not all vegans are skinny hipsters.

You're right, some are skinny hippies.

 

[Hard Truth]

The points about the leader's responsibility make sense, but what I'm try to get to is: To what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

 

[Mycroft]

The points about the leader's responsibility make sense, but what I'm try to get to is: To what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

People have no obligation to be self-reliant...though it would be nice if everyone was.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

People have no obligation to be self-reliant...though it would be nice if everyone was.

Really? Where should they seek support?

 

[Mycroft]

Really? Where should they seek support?

shrug...wherever they can find it if they want to. I suggest they see their local liberals.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

shrug...wherever they can find it if they want to. I suggest they see their local liberals.

Not quite the idea you posted...

 

[Mycroft]

Not quite the idea you posted...

I don't understand what you are saying...what idea did I post?

 

[Goshin]

If we imagine a disaster of most types it is easy to imagine who is most likely to survive-the stronger, healthier people wearing practical clothes for their environment. Some of those less likely to be survive are the very young, the elderly sick and disabled. But let's consider the others who are less likely to survive-those who are obese, those without any physical strength and those who wear less practical clothes. In a way they are voluntarily weak and/or relatively helpless. It may or not be necessary for others to provide assistance for these people. Is it ethical for the voluntarily weak and/or helpless people to put others into the position of having to rescue them? Does it depend on the situation?

We can start with an extreme situation. A group is taking a hike up a mountain. Some of the hikers show up with appropriate clothes, but despite the warnings, some of them decided to prioritize looking good instead. Some of the women are wearing high heels, skirts, pantyhose, and silk blouses. Some of the men wore business suits with thin sole Italian shoes. There is also a contingent of fat people, an anorexic, a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans and a few couch potatoes and nerds. Before the hike starts the leader reminds everyone that the trail is rough, the temperature could change and there might be mountain lions. He tells them that they are free to opt out of the hike if they don't feel up for it. Despite the warnings, everyone goes on the hike.

1. Halfway through the hike, the less fit and inappropriately dressed people want to go back because they are too uncomfortable and tired. If some go back, they all must go back. Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to ruin the hike for the rest of the group?

2. A storm comes and washes away the trail. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed ones over the section that they can't handle? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

Now, back at the office, an earthquake or storm causes the building to collapse. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed (for a disaster) ones out of the building? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

Short version?

You save who you can, but you don't endanger your own for the sake of someone who was willfully unprepared.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I don't understand what you are saying...what idea did I post?

This...

People have no obligation to be self-reliant...

 

[ecofarm]

You're right, some are skinny hippies.

I'm not skinny and I'm not a hippy.

 

[Jack Hays]

If we imagine a disaster of most types it is easy to imagine who is most likely to survive-the stronger, healthier people wearing practical clothes for their environment. Some of those less likely to be survive are the very young, the elderly sick and disabled. But let's consider the others who are less likely to survive-those who are obese, those without any physical strength and those who wear less practical clothes. In a way they are voluntarily weak and/or relatively helpless. It may or not be necessary for others to provide assistance for these people. Is it ethical for the voluntarily weak and/or helpless people to put others into the position of having to rescue them? Does it depend on the situation?

We can start with an extreme situation. A group is taking a hike up a mountain. Some of the hikers show up with appropriate clothes, but despite the warnings, some of them decided to prioritize looking good instead. Some of the women are wearing high heels, skirts, pantyhose, and silk blouses. Some of the men wore business suits with thin sole Italian shoes. There is also a contingent of fat people, an anorexic, a few ultra-skinny hipster vegans and a few couch potatoes and nerds. Before the hike starts the leader reminds everyone that the trail is rough, the temperature could change and there might be mountain lions. He tells them that they are free to opt out of the hike if they don't feel up for it. Despite the warnings, everyone goes on the hike.

1. Halfway through the hike, the less fit and inappropriately dressed people want to go back because they are too uncomfortable and tired. If some go back, they all must go back. Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to ruin the hike for the rest of the group?

2. A storm comes and washes away the trail. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed ones over the section that they can't handle? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

Now, back at the office, an earthquake or storm causes the building to collapse. Are the fit and prepared ones morally obligated to carry the weak or inappropriately dressed (for a disaster) ones out of the building? Was it OK for the less fit and inappropriately dressed people to put the rest of the group at risk of injury when they had to carry them?

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

For the record, mild obesity is a favorable trait for survival. Don't leap to unwarranted conclusions.eace

 

[year2late]

It is the old lifeboat analogy.

You shouldn't have to critically endanger yourself to save another.

On the other hand if the less fit person can bring something else to the table they might be seen as more worth saving.

 

[Mycroft]

This...

Ummm...they don't.

What does that have to do with my suggestion that people get help from liberals?

 

[Moot]

So, when you say this "group leader" is responsible for helping "everyone" get to safety, would that be everyone everyone, or just "those who need help" everyone, and screw helping the rest?

According to the story some were prepared and others were not. So I assume the unprepared ones are probably the ones who would need the most help. The guide probably shouldn't have let them go on the hike in the first place. But since he did and he is the guide, he is responsible, imo.

 

[Arcana XV]

To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?

I'm not sure if your post is meant as an allegory, or if it's really just about unpredictable disasters and how prepared we all should be for them.

I'm gonna go with the allegory and say that life itself can be an unpredictable disaster. Now, I don't believe that life is made of obligations. It's made of choices. Ideally, people should make the right choices. They too often don't. The real question is, do others, i.e. society, family, friends, charities, churches, the government, have an obligation to help those who are weak and helpless because of specific choices they've made? Should we help the single mother who chose to keep her baby even though she can't really afford it? Should we help the alcoholic who chose to drink himself into a pathetic wreck? The heavy smoker who ends up with cancer, but has no health insurance? Should we help the drug addict? The teenager who ran away from home? The homeless? My answer, again, comes down to choice. Either we choose to help, or we don't. And of course live with the consequences of either choice.

 

[Deuce]

shrug...wherever they can find it if they want to. I suggest they see their local liberals.

Certainly wouldn't want to ask Republicans. Why, many of them are Christians. Christians don't buy into that "helping those in need" liberal nonsense!