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.
To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?
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!
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.
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.
To put it another way-to what extent do people have an obligation to be self reliant?
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)
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?
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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?