Yesterday I posed a hypothetical ethical dilemma sent to me by my son; briefly, it outlined a situation where a friend would be attacked by a bear, his injuries not known, but they could range from life-threatening to superficial. The only way to save him (her) from that fate was to accept a fate of your own, which was to live the rest of your life in rain. Here is the answer that I sent him:
This is the sort of vexing question that seems to have no right or wrong answer. In considering the seemingly selfless option of saving your friend from an uncertain fate, you must also consider the consequences of that act of altruism against the misery that you will inflict, not only on yourself, but on those around you. For example, if you were married, would it be fair to consign your partner, who presumably had no say in your choice, to a lifetime of rain? Indeed, wouldn't that lifetime of rain also have an effect on everyone around you, perhaps sending them into deep depression, disability or even death through suicide?
When you think about it, the dilemma involves all of your neighbours, friends, and fellow citizens. Because of the related nature of the world, none of the choices we make are truly made in isolation, so the premise of the original question is flawed. Is it more altruistic to save your friend, or is it more altruistic to consider the possible repercussions of your act on a much wider range of people?
Reminds me of the saying that no good deeds go unpunished.
I will return to this in my next post as to why recognizing this inter-relatedness is vital if there is to be any hope for humanity's future.
No comments:
Post a Comment