Moral Obligation on a Desert Island: Caring for the Vulnerable
The age-old question of whether one has a moral obligation to care for an old or feeble person versus a healthy but lazy person when stranded on a desert island is a complex and thought-provoking one. This dilemma involves not only ethical considerations but also practical survival strategies.
Defining Moral Obligation
A moral obligation is generally considered as a duty or responsibility that arises from ethical principles. However, when you are in a survival situation, this ethical duty must be weighed against the practical necessities of ensuring mutual survival.
Feeling Morally Obligated to an Old Person
Most people would feel a strong moral obligation to care for an old or feeble person. Reasons for this include empathy, cultural expectations, and the recognition of valuable knowledge or experience that an older person might possess. For example, an older individual might have served in the military and have valuable survival skills or knowledge, making them a potentially invaluable resource in a challenging situation.
Strategic Survival
When survival is the primary concern, it’s important to assess the resources needed and the abilities of those in your group. If you are the only one with the skills and resources to care for the feeble person, it becomes a matter of pragmatism: you need to work together to increase your chances of survival.
Manipulating Lazy and Incapable Individuals
Failing to care for an active and capable person can be as harmful as failing to care for an old or feeble person. Lazy and incapable individuals can be encouraged to contribute to the group's survival through subtle incentives. For instance, assigning them specific tasks like collecting firewood or fishing can tap into their potential and improve the group's survival chances. Similarly, by making them responsible for something they enjoy, like mangoes, their laziness can be overcome.
Equity and Fairness
One must also consider the moral dimension of how to distribute responsibility fairly. While alliances and strategies can be employed to manipulate individuals, it is important to maintain a sense of fairness and humanity. Resources should be shared equitably, and each person should have a fair share of the workload, even if that means some are given easier tasks while others do the more demanding work.
The Vulnerable and the Capable
Some argue that caring for the incapable is more of a human duty than a moral obligation. This belief stems from the idea that all lives are valuable, and individuals have a responsibility to care for one another, regardless of the individual's ability. This perspective aligns with the historical evidence of human societies where care for the injured and disabled was a defining characteristic.
Practical Considerations
Practically speaking, if you find yourself in a situation where you can provide the necessary care and resources, you should do so. The key is to balance your instincts for survival with your capacity to care. While caring for a lazy and incapable person my be more challenging, the ethical and practical benefits of doing so cannot be underestimated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision to care for an old or feeble person versus a healthy but lazy person in a survival situation is a moral and practical one. It is a blend of ethical duty, strategic survival, and equitable fairness. Ultimately, the decision must be made based on a balance of these factors to ensure the collective survival and well-being of the group.