Desert island discourse

[Thudlow_Boink]

My reaction to the OP was: “Is this an abortion debate in disguise?” I’ve been waiting for either the OP or someone else to come along and point out the analogy between killing/allowing the small child on the island to die, and having an abortion. Which isn’t that far-fetched an analogy if you consider a fetus to be a human being (below the age of birth is “well below the age of reason”).

[silenus]

@Malacandra

Who knows what I mean to do with the rest of my years? What of my dependents elsewhere when I return to civilisation? Why do you write the rest of my life off as of no consequence?

It matters not what you do with the rest of your life. You will have proven yourself to be a failure as a human being, and therefore of no consequence to anyone.

[Malacandra]

@Thudlow Boink

My reaction to the OP was: “Is this an abortion debate in disguise?” I’ve been waiting for either the OP or someone else to come along and point out the analogy between killing/allowing the small child on the island to die, and having an abortion. Which isn’t that far-fetched an analogy if you consider a fetus to be a human being (below the age of birth is “well below the age of reason”).

Perhaps not an abortion debate in disguise, but it might be interesting to ponder the differences between the two situations, and argue which differences are the crucial ones… especially as Lemur866 seems vehemently opposed to the idea of me prolonging my life at the expense of the child, never mind any lesser reason for killing it or letting it die.

[Lemur866]

@Malacandra

unoffended smile

Well, I’ve already made my position clear, as you’ll have seen when you read this thread. I was after a reasoned discussion of the issues. It seems like one possible answer is: you should certainly do this, or you are a shitheel, an insect, one who deserves to die before the rest of humanity do the job for me. I find this more of a piece of rhetoric than a logical argument. I hope you see why.

Who knows what I mean to do with the rest of my years? What of my dependents elsewhere when I return to civilisation? Why do you write the rest of my life off as of no consequence?

I hope you didn’t take the “you” in my post as meaning you, Malacandra. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant the general you.

When I say that your life has no consequence, I’m speaking from a universal perspective. Yes, your life is valuable to you. Infinitely valuable. But so is the baby’s life. Measured against infinity, extending your life by a finite amount doesn’t seem so important. What is important is what you accomplish, what kind of a person you are. WHY would you want to go on living, if you are the kind of person who would let a baby die?

Let’s put the situation somewhat differently. You’re on the island. You’ve got plenty of food, and are expecting rescue any day. A plane lands, but the pilot is a psychopath with a gun. He points a gun at you and demands that you pick up a rock and smash the baby’s head open.

Under US law, would commit a crime if you killed the baby. Is that unfair?

[XT]

Interesting question. For myself, my own personal code wouldn’t allow me to either allow a baby/small child to simply die or to actively kill him/her. It would be my PERSONAL choice to do whatever I could to ensure the baby/small childs survival, even at the risk of my own. As for what society would think or wouldn’t think (or the ‘legality’ of the situation)…it would never enter into it. My own decisions on the subject are all that count.

Actually, I didn’t see this as an ‘abortion debate in disguise’ but more of a gotcha for the free traders and capitalists (those few lonely folks around here) on this board.

-XT

[Edward_The_Head]

@Lemur866

When I say that your life has no consequence, I’m speaking from a universal perspective. Yes, your life is valuable to you. Infinitely valuable. But so is the baby’s life. Measured against infinity, extending your life by a finite amount doesn’t seem so important. What is important is what you accomplish, what kind of a person you are. WHY would you want to go on living, if you are the kind of person who would let a baby die?

So basically what you’re saying is that at all times I must help everyone out that I can. Even if I don’t want to, or chose not to. If I don’t then I’m scum right?

However, what if I’m a strong swimmer, I am actually, and I see other islands in the distance. I may try and swim out to them to see if I can get help. Am I supposed to take the baby with me? Am I still scum if the baby dies? What happens if I don’t know how to take care of a baby?

However, I have a question that goes along with this. How much are we our brother’s keeper? If everyone is so up and ready to help a baby, why is it when I have come across a motorcycle accident no one except for me stops? I once came upon two men who had a motorcycle accident in North Carolina. One had broken both a leg and his hip. It was the middle of the night, raining quite badly, and the other was trying to flag someone down. I did stop, call for help, yet many other people just kept on going. Even after being there for thirty minutes I was the only one to stop. Are the people who just kept on driving scum for not stopping to help? If not why not? I don’t see much of a difference, here we have two men, hurt, along a major freeway, unable to do anything for themselves. How is this any different then a child on an island?

[Jonathan_Chance]

I’m not sure it is, Eddie. Though pointing out the moral failings of others hardly makes one’s own less demeaning.

As I said up there in post #2…I would feel a moral imperative to aid the helpless. Were I to find myself on that selfsame island with another competent adult who told me, “You feed me. Go find some food. I’ll be taking a nap.” I’d feel very little need to assist him.

Assisting the helpless and less capable is the very rock bottom of society. From it comes charity, chivalry, honor and goodness. The other path leads to the dark side.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, I’d be patting my full belly when the rescuers show up and saying “Child? Uh… what child?”

[Paladud]

The kid would get to fend for itself unless I was somehow responsible for its presence on the island or had some strong connection to it. ‘Human’ is not a sufficient connection.

[Shagnasty]

@Paladud

The kid would get to fend for itself unless I was somehow responsible for its presence on the island or had some strong connection to it. ‘Human’ is not a sufficient connection.

You don’t need to concern yourself with that specific type of connection if it doesn’t apply to you.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@silenus

Failure to do your utmost to keep both of you alive and whole would be to fail as a human being. An adult you could abandon to their own fate - a child you cannot. There is no other option.

I’m not saying one way or the other, I just want to be the devils advocate here…

Does this reasoning come from social education? Why couldn’t you abandon a child? Why is this child more important then your life? And why does one fail as a human being if he doesn’t take care of said child?

[Polycarp]

“If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am for myself only, what am I”
–Hillel

[ParentalAdvisory]

Self-sufficient?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Bricker

I’m unaware of any law imposing such a duty.

Then get acquainted with the legal concept of “Depraved Indifference”.

In Tennessee, you can get 2 to 7. No known cases prosecuted, but still…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Then get acquainted with the legal concept of “Depraved Indifference”.

Coudl you please provide a link in order to assist with the acquaintancing? I can’t find a good solid legal definition of “depraved indifference” that would cover the situation described by Priceguy and challenged by Bricker. No action on the part of the proposed defendant created the situtation and there is no pre-existing duty toward the hypothetical child. Wouldn’t a charge of “depraved indifference” require a positive act at some stage toward the death of the victim, i.e. you’re guilty of “depraved indifference” if you push a car down a hill, letting it roll through a busy intersection where it may hit someone or it may not. Though there is no specific intent to kill someone, the situtation is of your creation.

Can you give some adittional detail about the Tennessee law in question?

[Malacandra]

Hi, all. I see there’s an interesting spin-off GQ thread inspired by this. Continuing with my own hypothetical, though, how about (as I suggested above) if it’s my own child? And does it make a difference if he’s there because of my own actions, or in defiance of my will?

[Scumpup]

@Lemur866

Unless the baby needs to nurse, I don’t see why you’d need any particular extra effort to prepare food for her. If she can’t chew, just chew the food yourself and give her the pre-chewed food. This is done all over the world and is common mammalian behavior. The baby will think it’s normal.

And small children don’t require very much food compared to the caloric requirements of a active healthy adult. A situation where you’d both starve if you fed her, but you’d live if you starved her would be extremely unlikely. Just cut your rations by 10-20%. If the food situation is so dire that a 20% cut in rations is likely to kill you then you are likely to starve to death anyway.

And lastly, are you a man, are you a human being, or a mechanism for converting food into shit? Why bother converting oxygen to CO2, why bother going on? When you die, you’re gone forever. You only get one shot at life. If you’re gonna be a shitheel, why bother? Why not just put yourself out of your misery right now, and save the rest of us the trouble? So what if by killing a baby you got to breathe for a few more years? Is it really that important? You’re gonna be dead for exactly as long as you’d be dead if you’d have saved her: forever. You’ve got nothing to lose by acting like a human being instead of an insect.

Just so.