Philosophy Now Forum

I used to like Ayn Rand when I was a lot younger and a lot more ignorant. Her insistence on basic principles appealed to me. She would say something like the following:

"No one has the right to force another human being to do anything against his/her own (perceived) self interest. If we allow a human being to ‘initiate’ force against another, to force him act against his/her interests, then we have approved of dictatorships of the worst kind.

One of the many reasons I disagree with her now is the question of compassion.

For illustration purposes, think about the following ‘thought experiment’:

What if I were walking on the bank of a river and saw a child drowning, feet away from a healthy young man fishing in a boat? What if I saw that this young man ignored the child’s screams for help and kept on fishing? What if, when I asked him to save the kid, he refused?

I know that this young man is not blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped, he is a good swimmer and able to rescue the child; he merely chooses to exercise his ‘right’ not to act on my pity.

If for some reason I couldn’t save the child (I couldn’t swim, or whatever), and if I carried a gun, would I threaten the man in the boat?

When I first thought of this scenario, I was shocked to find that my ‘gut reaction’ was: yes, without hesitation!

Would I actually have pulled the trigger if he refused? If I were sure I could get away with it? I am sure I would not. I was raised to recoil from killing. But I would wish I could. It would be my most basic instinct to destroy this traitor to humanity.

Before you all recoil in horror and yell : “Murderer!”, let me remind you that most of the heroes of your country were honored for the unquestioning murder of fellow human beings who were the ‘enemy’ at the time - as decreed by your government.

One more question for those who wouldn’t: what would you do if the child were your own? You still don’t think you would be tempted to use the gun?

Let me emphasize at this point that I most emphatically do not approve of violence of any kind to solve social problems - the example is only an illustration of a moral dilemma.

So, basically, I believe we do owe each other something (for those who disagree about saving the child, I “recommend suicide at their earliest convenience” to quote Konrad Lorenz. It would save us the trouble of putting them out of our misery).

The question is: how much do we owe each other?

Where to draw the line?

I have tried to find a basic principle that would make this line as ‘non-arbitrary’ as possible in the Proposal for a New Social Contract thread.

I am curious about what your reaction would be, should you find yourself in the scenario of the thought experiment I described above.

In the broader sense: do human beings ‘owe’ each other anything?

forcing someone at gunpoint to do anything is not compassion

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:forcing someone at gunpoint to do anything is not compassion.

So, what would you do if it was your own child drowning?

Wouldn't you use ANY means to save the child, even if it was by a gun?

I know I would.

Ned wrote:

Impenitent wrote:forcing someone at gunpoint to do anything is not compassion.

So, what would you do if it was your own child drowning?

Wouldn't you use ANY means to save the child, even if it was by a gun?

I know I would.

shooting a bystander, or threatening a bystander leaves you with a drowned child and a reason to be arrested

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:shooting a bystander, or threatening a bystander leaves you with a drowned child and a reason to be arrested

Not necessarily, as you very well know it.

The child could very well be saved by the threatened man.

Why do you refuse to see the obvious?

Ned wrote:

Impenitent wrote:shooting a bystander, or threatening a bystander leaves you with a drowned child and a reason to be arrested

Not necessarily, as you very well know it.

The child could very well be saved by the threatened man.

Why do you refuse to see the obvious?

a saved child and a reason to be arrested?

the only obvious thing is that you wish to control people at gunpoint

why do you hate freedom?

-Imp

Suggestion: read the OP, think about it, give yourself time to examine every implication, from every possible angle, try to place yourself in the situation, imagine it was your child drowning, and TRY to come up with an HONEST answer to the dilemma, instead of firing off one-liner evasions.

That is my suggestion.

When you have done that, then we can resume discussing the REAL issue.

Not till then.

Anyone else?

Impenitent wrote:
why do you hate freedom?

The proper answer to this is: "Why do you beat your wife and children?"

If he refused, and you pulled the trigger, two people instead of one would be dead.

I'm normally against imposition, but if it was in his power to save the child, I wouldn't blame you for doing so.

Btw, can't stand Ayn Rand.

Dalek Prime wrote:If he refused, and you pulled the trigger, two people instead of one would be dead.

Dalek, I did say in the OP that I would NOT pull the trigger.

Btw, can't stand Ayn Rand.

Agreed. She was totally out to lunch when it came to the real world.

Sorry Ned, you did. My bad.

Ayn Rand, at the end of her life, relied on social security to get by.

Ned wrote:In the broader sense: do human beings ‘owe’ each other anything?

This has been debated extensively, but is still great food for thought, and goes to the root of the differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. And, I suppose the question is somewhat ambiguous in that we need to define "owe." Are we talking about a legally mandated obligation with criminal or civil penalties for not acting? Or a moral obligation that cannot be legally enforced on an individual?

My opinion is that as individuals dealing with other individuals, we only owe each other what are referred to as "negative" rights. Things get a bit cloudy when we as individuals, through a social contract, form a government. Then several questions arise...

"What does an individual owe to the government?"
"What does the government owe to an individual?"
"What does an individual owe to society?"
"What does society owe to the individual?"

I will refrain from discussing the above questions and stick to the current scenario proposed in the OP.

Ned wrote:What if I were walking on the bank of a river and saw a child drowning, feet away from a healthy young man fishing in a boat? What if I saw that this young man ignored the child’s screams for help and kept on fishing? What if, when I asked him to save the kid, he refused?

My opinion is that the fisherman does not "owe" it to the child to save him. Compassion cannot and should not be mandated in my opinion. Now, having said that, if I personally was there and saw the kid drowning, I would be the first to jump in and rescue the child, even at risk to myself. But again, I am not obligated to save the child.

Ned, do you see what I am saying? I would not be obligated to save the child, but yet I personally would try to save the child. Isn't it infinitely more noble and honorable to do a good deed because I want to, instead of because society has mandated that I must do the deed? If I save the child because I am obligated to save the child, I am not a hero. I prefer to live in a world where there can be heroes.

Ned wrote:for those who disagree about saving the child, I “recommend suicide at their earliest convenience” to quote Konrad Lorenz. It would save us the trouble of putting them out of our misery.

Having lurked on this forum a bit, the above thought is very puzzling to me. So you, Ned, want me to commit suicide to save you the trouble of putting me out of my misery? A very strange thought considering that you are against the death penalty (as determined from other threads).

So you have more compassion for a mass murderer who tortured his victims before killing them than you have for me? Just because I feel that an individual is not obligated to save the drowning child?

Would you want the mass murderer to also commit suicide, or is that just for people like me who answered "there isn't an obligation to save the child." Why does the mass murderer deserve more of your compassion than I do?

To me, the mass murderer is extremely more reprehensible than the individual who did not act to save the child.

garygary wrote: the question is somewhat ambiguous in that we need to define "owe." Are we talking about a legally mandated obligation with criminal or civil penalties for not acting? Or a moral obligation that cannot be legally enforced on an individual?

I did not mean legal obligation. I meant ethical obligation to other members of a social organization: our society that is protecting and sustaining us all. Our interdependence makes the honouring of this obligation a prerequisite to the survival of the whole. More on it in my other thread I called "Resolving conflicting loyalties"

...if I personally was there and saw the kid drowning, I would be the first to jump in and rescue the child, even at risk to myself. But again, I am not obligated to save the child.

I made it clear in the OP that this option is not available in this scenario. I may be a cripple in a wheel chair, or behind a chain link fence with razor wire on top, or whatever. Reread the OP and you will see it.

Having lurked on this forum a bit, the above thought is very puzzling to me. So you, Ned, want me to commit suicide to save you the trouble of putting me out of my misery? A very strange thought considering that you are against the death penalty (as determined from other threads).

Guilty as charged. It was a flippant way of expressing my disapproval and to quote Konrad Lorenz. I just could not resist it. Don't take it too seriously, I don't want you to commit suicide!

RE: Defining "owe".

Ned wrote:I did not mean legal obligation. I meant ethical obligation of a member of a social organization that is protecting and sustaining him/her. Our interdependence makes the honouring of this obligation a prerequisite to the survival of the whole

Understood. Concerning the fisherman, there is an ethical obligation to save the child, but not a legally enforceable obligation. So what should happen if someone violates an ethical obligation?

garygary wrote:I would be the first to jump in and rescue the child, even at risk to myself

Ned wrote:I made it clear in the OP that this option is not available in this scenario. Reread the OP and you will see it.

Yes, I understood the original scenario but neglected to answer. I mentioned that I would attempt to save the child, not as an answer to the scenario, but to give you a glimpse into who I am. But, to answer the specific question of what I would do if I personally could not help the child...

1. The child is a stranger: I would scream and yell to motivate the fisherman to save the child, but wouldn't use a gun to force him to. If the child drowned, I would think that the fisherman was a sorry excuse for a human being. But I would not want any kind of punishment placed on him.

2. The child is my child: Would definitely use the gun in an attempt to get the fisherman to save the child. I would definitely fire some shots into the water if necessary. And if my child drowned, I just might shoot the guy. Yep, that would be out of rage and revenge.

Ned wrote:More on it in my other thread I called "Resolving conflicting loyalties"

My answers to your question above seem illogical based on my view that the fisherman is not obligated to save the child! But, my thinking is opposite to yours concerning "Resolving conflicting loyalties." I am much more obligated to and protective of my family than to life in general. And, concerning your gut reactions in the original post of this thread, perhaps, deep inside, you don't quite believe what you wrote in "Resolving conflicting loyalties" either? Good stuff though! Thank you.

Ned wrote:Guilty as charged. It was a flippant way of expressing my disapproval and to quote Konrad Lorenz. I just could not resist it. Don't take it too seriously, I don't want you to commit suicide!

I knew you didn't. I just couldn't help but point out what looked to be an inconsistency in your thinking.

1. What if I were walking on the bank of a river and saw a child drowning, feet away from a healthy young man fishing in a boat? What if I saw that this young man ignored the child’s screams for help and kept on fishing? What if, when I asked him to save the kid, he refused?

I know that this young man is not blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped, he is a good swimmer and able to rescue the child; he merely chooses to exercise his ‘right’ not to act on my pity.

If for some reason I couldn’t save the child (I couldn’t swim, or whatever), and if I carried a gun, would I threaten the man in the boat?
...
2. One more question for those who wouldn’t: what would you do if the child were your own? You still don’t think you would be tempted to use the gun?

An interesting scenario.
1. I would have to say that anyone who does not have a natural impulse to save a child from drowning has to be labelled as 'handicapped'; more than likely a psychopath. Such a person would not feel the need to act on your pity or compassion.

[So many stories of non or poor swimmers who attempt to save - even drowning dogs. They don't think of it as having a moral/ethical obligation ]

If you carried a gun, you could threaten this person. I think the scenario would change to you, yourself being attacked. This is not going to effect a child rescue. Therefore, threatening with a gun is not a sensible option.

2. Taking a child who has not learned to swim near a river when you yourself are unable to swim, or have a life saver nearby - is negligence.
I wouldn't be carrying a gun.

3. If I were that child in the river, and saw my 'carer' or someone brandishing a gun/shooting at an uncaring psychopath, I would despair. I would let myself be carried downstream to a solid rock and hope for some other source of help. Perhaps drowning would be preferable...