Is it ethical to be weak or helpless?

[TacticalEvilDan]

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.

In this particular example, I hold the leader directly responsible for tolerating anyone who is not qualified and properly equipped for the hike. He shouldn't make going optional, he should make being capable and prepared mandatory prior to setting out.

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

You are responsible for the people you are responsible for, regardless of how self-reliant they are.

 

[Mycroft]

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!

Oh, plenty of Christians...and even Republicans...are willing to lend a helping hand. I suggested liberals because they would be more likely to get their government to pass a law requiring such help.

 

[VanceMack]

As to the OP, where is the obligation for the group to travel together and why must the group turn back if those less prepared have to?

If this were some organized event then the answer is simple...those that showed up without appropriate gear should be disallowed to participate. The rest....soldier on. If it is just recommended gear and they are traveling of their own free will, accord and direction, then they can go as long as they want to and head back when they have to. In other words...I think your premise is goofy and Im not sure it sets the tone for the discussion you want.

 

[What if...?]

Went to a Rainbow Gathering with my wife and her family once.

Freak summer snowstorm hit right before we got there.

In the snow, in the mountains of Idaho, her mom was wearing high heels.

I **** you not.

They left, my wife and I stayed. Thank god.

 

[Hard Truth]

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.

I didn't intend it as allegory, but I had a feeling the discussion might drift into welfare, disability rights. I was actually inspired to post it by seeing some people who appear very weak and other people who partially disable themselves by their choice of clothing. (ie. highheels)

 

[Neomalthusian]

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.

At this point I must interject that you have presented a scenario in which communism becomes a more realistic system of government. A very small group of people with virtually no other surrounding societal structure and few resources. Yeah, communism makes a bit more sense in that scenario.

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.

Why is that a rule? It doesn't work that way in real world scenarios.

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

The law recognizes people of a certain age to be "the age of majority," or legal adults, in other words. This means they are no longer dependents of their parents/guardians, rather they become their own guardians. At this point, their decisions are autonomous, their contracts/trades with others are valid and legally binding, and this is how they meet their own needs. If they make unwise choices or refrain from engaging in any trade, their needs will not be met very well. This is not so much about moral obligation to help others, rather it is how our law must differentiate between minors/dependents and adults/independents.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I didn't intend it as allegory, but I had a feeling the discussion might drift into welfare, disability rights. I was actually inspired to post it by seeing some people who appear very weak and other people who partially disable themselves by their choice of clothing. (ie. highheels)

You "had the feeling?" :lol:

 

[opendebate]

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?

Late to the party, as usual. The problem here of course is that in real life application there is widely differing opinion as to what is intentional weakness. How do you determine what qualifies? Who determines what qualifies? I, of course, am assuming this is an analogy and leapt ahead. (The moral obligation of self-reliance being a fundamental piece of the conservative framework and all.)

 

[274ina]

Yes get rid of the weak, useless and "inappropriately dressed people " living in the Wall Streeet fantasy land...........

 

[Arcana XV]

I didn't intend it as allegory, but I had a feeling the discussion might drift into welfare, disability rights. I was actually inspired to post it by seeing some people who appear very weak and other people who partially disable themselves by their choice of clothing. (ie. highheels)

Ah. Well, my answer is still the same. No obligation, only choice. Humans often choose to help one another when at all possible in such instances, because no one likes to just leave someone in a situation where they might be harmed, regardless of how the person ended up in that predicament.