How indebted are we to strangers?

The BBQ Pit
1

Not sure where this should go, but it seemed like it might get a good debate going so I thought I’d put it in the pit.

I’m pondering the morals and ethics as far as how we deal with perfect strangers when it is undoubtedly in our own best interest to do something that could potentially hurt them.

Examples, in ascending order of seriousness:

You make a large purchase on credit. You notice the salesperson writing down incorrect information on the sales ticket, but you don’t correct him/her. As a result, you don’t get charged. The salesperson could get in big trouble over this. Is it your responsibility to correct it?

You are single. You become involved with a married person, and the two of you fall in love. You are sure this is the love of your life, soulmate, whatever you want to call it, and the married person feels the same. Should you break it off solely based on the potential pain his or her spouse will feel when he/she finds out about the infidelity?

You have a loved one who is dying of an incurable disease. You are magically given the chance to cure them, but in doing so a stranger someplace else in the world will die. Should you do it?

2

Yes

Yes

No

If I can’t live with myself, I might as well be dead.

3

In the first two, you are taking an action (or inaction) that sacrifices the well being of someone else for your own selfish gains.
(I want to really go on a rage about #2. I say, go ahead stick with the “love of your life.” I can think of no better punishment for cheaters than to be stuck with each other. Have fun looking over your shoulder, following your spouse and wondering about every hang up call. He/she may have cheated on his wife/hubby, but he will neeeever cheat on you.)

But it is the same essential issue. THe other person has no choice. My action is sure to cause them a lot of harm that they do not deserve. Yet I have the choice to go seek pleasure in ways that don’t harm others (especially innocent others.)

If I choose to derive personal gain or pleasure in ways that are sure to harm others rather than in ways that do not harm others, I am choosing to harm others.

If I intentionally harm those I do not know, I am a danger to society and unfit for a societal relationship based on trust (and they all are.)

If one defines morality as doing that what is good for society, then I am immoral.

4

Incidentally, the last reminds me of the plot of an old Twilight Zone episode in which the main character was given a button which, when pushed, gave him one million dollars, but caused a total stranger to die. After much agonizing, he pushes the button, and the mysterious stranger takes the button away, promising to give it to a total stranger.

TheDude

5

Let me rephrase a little bit. I wasn’t so much asking what you SHOULD do - I think the answer is pretty clear in each scenario - but what WOULD you do, and the ramifications of that. For example, in the third scenario, let’s say it’s your child who is dying. I’m guessing a whole lot of people would go to great lengths to save their child - it’s the way we’re wired. Is that person who chooses to save their child (and kill another person) somehow immoral or subhuman for doing so?

As for #2, this is a hypothetical situation, so let’s just assume that these two lovers know, without a doubt, that they would be happier together than the married person would be if he/she continued the marriage. The choice is between hurting the trusting spouse in order to gain a long-term happiness that they somehow are sure is waiting for them, or cutting it off because they know it will cause a lot of pain to the spouse.

6

Great question! As for money mistakes by salespeople I always correct them. I just think it’s bad karma not to. Recently, I took a cab and in the back was a book and a 5$ bill. I gave both to the driver even though he was rude. My step-brother said I should have kept the money but it was harder to give up that book (I’m a total bibliophile!).

And I won’t even look twice at a married person so I can’t place myself in that scenario.

As for the third: If I could go back in time and exchange my brother’s life for another I still don’t think I would. Another family would suffer what we did and I couldn’t be responsible for their pain. However, if I could give up everything I own (my house, car, bank accounts) I would. I know my folks would too. But take another life? I don’t think I could.

7

Somebody once said something about doing unto others. I resolve most ethical questions by reversing the situation and asking, what would I want them to do to me?

  • If I were the clerk making the mistake, would I want to be told? or, if the mistake were in the store’s favor, would I not quickly correct the clerk?

  • If I were the other spouse, how would I want to be treated?

  • If I were the sick friend, would I be willing to pay that price to be cured? Or, if I were the total stranger, would I be willing to make that sacrifice?

The answers are usually pretty clear when you view the drama from the outside, and switch around which character is “you.”

8

Quite–as I have always been dependent on the kindness of strangers.

9

Bullshit. Let’s face it, we simply do not want to suffer the guilt.

Once we get past the fact that there is no objective morality, we can freely drop our guilt as it is nothing but excess baggage.

Let’s admit it, bad things happen whether you cause them or not.

¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

10

Definitely an interesting way of looking at things, especially since I think it would change the second answer for me.

On the first scenario, I would definitely want to be corrected.

On the second, if I were the faithful spouse, I think I would want to be told of the affair. If my husband was sure that he would be happier with the other woman, I think I’d say “Ok, let’s split up.” Who wants to be married to someone who doesn’t think of you as the love of his/her life? 'Course, the absence or presence of children may change the answer somewhat.

The third is still a hard one for me. I have to say, I don’t know what I would do. I think I’d probably go nutso trying to avoid having to make a decision.

11

tell the clerk
leave the spouse alone
the last one is tough…I dont want my mom to die…but she would gladly give her life to save another, she would not want to live if another had to die…I couldnt do it, It might be someone’s child that died.

I am glad to see someone else mention ‘bad Karma’…I truly believe that what goes around comes around.I am not religous, just cautious.

12

In the MPSIMS forum, Big Iron said if a building were on fire containing his a stranger and a pet and he could only run in and save one, he would save his pet. In fact, he said he would save his pet instead or 3/4 of us SDMB members.

I disagree with him! I would save the person instead of my pet every time.

13

“…his a stranger and a pet…”

should be “a stranger and his pet”…

14

Athena
Member posted 08-17-1999 04:38 PM

“You have a loved one who is dying of an incurable disease. You are magically given the chance to cure them, but in doing so a stranger someplace else in the world will die. Should you do it?”

 Some have said that doing so is immoral, so, with the understanding that this is without Athena’s permission, I’d like to reword the question. A loved needs a heart transplant. A heart becomes available, but you realize that if your loved one takes the heart, someone else who also needs a heart transplant will die. Will you recommend that your loved one take the heart?

Byzantine
Member posted 08-17-1999 05:55 PM

“And I won't even look twice at a married person so I can't place myself in that scenario.”

What does this mean? Upon meeting people, do you instantly know whether or not they’re married, and if they are, refuse to have any social interactions with them?

CKDextHavn
Administrator posted 08-17-1999 07:21 PM

“Somebody once said something about doing unto others. I resolve most ethical questions by reversing the situation and asking, what would I want them to do to me?”

This absolutely useless in settling moral issues. Suppose someone steals my car, and I find out who. According the Golden Rule, I shouldn’t turn him in, because if I were in that situation, I wouldn’t want to be turned in. In any situation you can think of, the Golden Rule will tell you to help out the other person. While that sounds nice, it’s not the same as being moral. Basically, all the Golden Rule says is “Ignore your own preferences and do whatever everyone else wants you to do”. I have no intention of living my life in such a gutless manner.

-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *

15

<< According the Golden Rule, I shouldn’t turn him in, because if I were in that situation, I wouldn’t want to be turned in. In any situation you can think of, the Golden Rule will tell you to help out the other person. >>

Well, yes, to a point. But sometimes the best way to help someone is to get them off the streets. And sometimes the “other person” is not the car thief herself, but all the other people who own cars on the street.

But if I’m going to complain when a clerk accidentally overcharges me, then I certainly need to call it to his attention when he undercharges me.

16

The Ryan, hey, come on! Are you flaming me or being cute? What I meant (since I guess I have to spell it out for you) is that I wouldn’t look at them as a potential MATE! Or hey, how about I just put on my special glasses that make all married people grey blobs? That way, I won’t have to literally look at them at all!

You can count the number of apples in one tree but never the number of trees in one apple.

17

CKDextHavn
Administrator posted 08-19-1999 03:41 PM
“Well, yes, to a point. But sometimes the best way to help someone is to get them off the streets.”

Isn’t that just a rationalization? I mean, you want them off the streets, so you say “Well, maybe getting them off the streets is the best thing for them.” How convenient.

“And sometimes the “other person” is not the car thief herself, but all the other people who own cars on the street.”

Uh-huh. So after we’ve decided what the best thing to do is, we can take that information and use it to figure out who the “other people” are. Again, the Golden Rule is used to rationalize a decision you’ve already made.

As a clarification, I certainly don't have anything against people helping other people. But if we want to have moral guidance, that is, have a system that guides us in deciding when to help other people and when not to, then the statement "Always help other people, no matter what" seems indiscriminate to me. Aren't there situations where one is justified in putting one's own needs above others? If you get a job offer, do you refuse it unless you know no one else wants it? Do you always pick up hitchikers, no matter what? Do you buy absolutely nothing that isn't necessary for your survival, and give what you save to charities? If everyone follwed the Golden Rule, nothing would get done; we'd be to busy saying things like "You can take this cab" "No, you got here first. You take it" "No, you" "No, you"... ad infinitum.

Byzantine
Member posted 08-19-1999 03:50 PM
“Are you flaming me or being cute?”

I'm serious. You don't have to be looking for love to find it (although it helps). Sometimes, people in platonic relationships realize that they both have an interest in something more. Do you really think that you can know when you will or won't have such a relationship? I'm not asking whether you'll be able to refrain from acting on your feelings, but whether you're able to eliminate the possibility of ever having those feelings.

-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *

18

The Ryan,

You’re quite right that a moral code should be clear - otherwise it drifts towards whatever you say it is, in each situation.

I do like the idea of considering things from the other person’s perspective, but how about including ‘innocence’ in the examples?

If a clerk makes a innocent mistake (either way), correct them politely. They learn something (and you feel good).

If you fall in love with a married person, then why should the innocent spouse suffer?

But if someone steals my car, then I can turn them in to the police - because they’re guilty! However if I catch up with the car-jacker and they say ‘my car broke down and I needed to get my kid to hospital and I wasn’t thinking straight’ - then you may wish to let them off…

19

The Ryan: No I don’t eliminate my feelings. I don’t have a whole lot of control over what I feel but I do have a lot of control over what I do. And messing around with a married person is just something that I wouldn’t do. I know I wouldn’t because I have felt that way (interested) toward married men. I guess the difference is I wouldn’t act on that feeling no matter how compelling it was. Marriage to me is a MAJOR commitment, one that I have not seriously contemplated making. Besides, if he’d cheat on her to be with me he’ll cheat on me to be with someone else.

The moon looks on many flowers, the flowers on but one moon.

20

glee
Member posted 08-21-1999 09:00 PM

   “I do like the idea of considering things from the other person's perspective, but how about including 'innocence' in the examples?”

  Remember, the OP asked the question “How much does one owe a complete stranger?”  I think it’s safe to assume that Athena wanted to know what our decisions would be without knowing the moral character of the clerk, spouse, or complete stranger. Besides which, “innocence” is a highly subjective term. In the second example, would a man that ignores his wife be innocent? If he’s “let himself go” and is no longer attractive? What if he often insults her? If he cheats on her? If he beats her? These are all excuses that people use to justify hurting the spouse, and they’re exactly that: excuses. I’m not saying that it’s okay to beat your spouse, but just because someone has hurt someone else doesn’t give you the right to hurt them in “retaliation” (it’s in quotes because to be true retaliation, it would have to be the person that was hurt that’s hurting the person). Does morality only apply to people you like? Any time you’re trying to rationalize hurting someone else, it’s really easy to find something that they’ve done wrong that makes them “deserve” what you’re doing to them.
   But even ignoring the problems involved in determining “innocence”. If someone is “innocent”, are you obligated to put every single one of their concerns before your own? Aren’t there some situations where self-interest, even at the expense of an “innocent” party, is acceptable? If not, then is there any difference between not giving a panhandler money (assuming he’s "innocent”) and stealing from a bank? If the bank got the money through “dishonest” practices, would stealing that money actually be *better* than not giving to the panhandler? (Ignore the FDIC).
It seems to me that everyone has their own ideas of what is good and back, which I will refer to as a PMC (Personal Moral Code). In my experience, at least 99% of the people who say “do unto other as you would have them do unto you” don’t actually believe that they should do anything that anyone else wants them to. My interpretation of this statement is that what they mean is “You would want others to be good to you, so you should be good to them.”  Of course, when people say “be good”, what they mean is “follow my PMC”. So the Golden Rule isn’t, in itself, actually a moral code; it simply refers a more complete, and probably more arbitrary PMC. And since the Golden Rule is defined in terms of one's PMC, saying that one's PMC is based upon the Golden Rule is circular.
Even though the PMC is, well, personal, most people agree with the Golden Rule, so they think they have same moral code as someone else that also agrees with the Golden Rule, when they don’t, unless by some coincidence they share the same PMC. So everyone expects everyone else to follow their PMC, and think that everyone else has agreed to do so. And when everyone else doesn’t, they get annoyed and think other people aren’t “playing fair”.
 Also, I make a distinction between different levels of “should”. Three main divisions are:

Required
Reasonable request
Taking it a bit too far

 If a friend lets me borrow his car, bringing it back to him is required. If my friend wants to borrow my car, that’s a reasonable request. If a total stranger asks to borrow my car, that’s taking it too far. So into which category do you think the three situations of the OP fit?

Byzantine
Member posted 08-21-1999 09:12 PM

“And messing around with a married person is just something that I wouldn't do. I know I wouldn't because I have felt that way (interested) toward married men. I guess the difference is I wouldn't act on that feeling no matter how compelling it was.”

 I interpreted your original post as saying  that you would never have to decide whether or not to “mess around” with a married man because you’d never be in a position in which you’d feel that “messing around” is an option. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be “involved”. To me, it doesn’t necessitate any sexual activity, although it can include sexual activity.

-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *