explosivecombat | 031. [Text]

You know, I've realized that whenever I address the network nowadays, I always include some sort of apology for the morbidity of the subject matter; the subject matter is never any better the next time around, which I think just draws the validity of the apology into question by now. Ah, but that's neither here nor there - the subject today is still, however, not any better, so consider the apology this afternoon as genuine as it always is.

[In other words, sorry-not-sorry. Kimblee...]

I would like to discuss morality today, actually - perhaps befittingly, since there are so many morally dubious individuals around as of late.

Assume for a moment that you come across someone in peril; you're in a secluded area, and no one else is around to help this individual but you. The specific sort of peril they're in doesn't matter, but for the sake of argument, assume that it's something that you can handle easily - assume that assisting them won't kill you, and even if the situation you envision is dangerous you can call the authorities for help and that would be considered "assisting" for the sake of this experiment. For whatever reason, the person in peril cannot save themselves; if you don't do anything, the situation will prove fatal for the person you've come across.

No one will know if you help the person or not. You won't be punished or penalized in any way for not helping them - in other words, you have no legal obligation to do so - but if you don't, the person in peril is going to die. You've never met the person before this moment; there's nothing about their appearance or situation that implies that you should consider them an enemy, but they aren't explicitly a friend or an ally either. Just a random stranger that you are given the option of rescuing.

Most would probably agree that rescuing a person in peril like that is the "right" thing to do; I'm sure some would disagree, either because their beliefs are a bit unorthodox or because they want to feel edgy. So my question isn't necessarily what you believe - my question is why. Can you justify it, or are you just operating under "what feels right"?

Answer me anonymously if you'd like; as usual, your identity doesn't necessarily interest me, but your answer does.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If you have faith in people, you might say that it's more likely you're helping someone who will go on to do good than that you're helping someone who would go on to do evil. In that way, you're passing along a kindness to the rest of the world by helping out the one.

As you've noted, however, that assumption hinges on the amount of faith one has in people. If we're going to be honest rather than optimistic, it's most likely that we've assisted a party that's neutral at best - one that won't affect the outcome of the world either way.

Honesty and optimism do not strictly exist separately. It just means you don't believe in people, or you place too much demand on how far one person's contributions must reach before they're considered worthwhile. Assuming there aren't a large number of people asking morality-based questions via text on this network, I think you've previously already let me know which one it is. Leaving that aside, then, my best guess would be that one might save them out of empathy. In the reversed situation, they would want that help.

As usual, this is a nice lecture that isn't answering the question, you know.

I have faith in people. If you want me to leave that aside, in a situation with no clear benefit and no clear loss to me where the party was known to be as best passes for "neutral", I suppose I'd have to say whether I'd even help them at all would come down to which whim won out at the moment of said incident.

So you would be willing to leave someone to die in the name of following a whim...?

I'm not judging you for it, just making sure that we're both on the same wavelength.

Divested of my one reason to care, yes, I would. People die every day. I am not so sentimental to form a connection with any given one just because I happen to be a witness to their final moments.

Not one who believes we're bound in spirit by the human condition, then, I take it.

[ The human condition is for humans ]

Is that YOUR justification, or just a common response?

[And not for all of them, at that.]

It seems to be the common line of reasoning.

A valid one. After all, without the common desire to help each other forward, one wonders if humanity would have ever been able to make as much progress as they have. Though I suppose that progress is somewhat dependent on one's world. But no, I guess I just see things a little differently myself.

031. [Text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]

[text]