4 ms·
That would be a valid point if McCandless had made a pact with rangers that if he were come into serious trouble, they should rescue him immediately. Of course
by sinker 6y ago
That would be a valid point if McCandless had made a pact with rangers that if he were come into serious trouble, they should rescue him immediately.
Of course, he made no pact. He went out alone, died alone and his body was found incidentally by a group of hunters.
- bananabreakfast 6y agoIt sounds like you have the whole social contract of society fundamentally backwards. _Everyone_ has a pact with rangers that they should be rescued immediately. That's literally what rangers do. The exact same thing works with a doctor or an EMT. You make it sound like if someone started choking in a restaurant you would expect the EMT to say "well he never made a pact with me to rescue him from choking to death" so the guy dies.
- AdrianB1 6y agoI think you are right and wrong here: there is a pact that you get some services when you pay taxes, not for other reasons. At the same time people have the right to be left alone IF THEY WANT when they get lost, choke to death etc., but there is no way to differentiate, so the default is to try to save these people with the associated costs. Think about Do Not Resuscitate choice. There is no simple solution here.
- ardy42 6y ago> That would be a valid point if McCandless had made a pact with rangers that if he were come into serious trouble, they should rescue him immediately. > Of course, he made no pact. That's incorrect. McCandless made that pact by being part of this society. The pact is implicit: it's the act of breaking it that requires effort (if it's even allowed at all).
- ElFitz 6y agoHonestly, this is more about philosophy than anything else, and a part of philosophy much more rooted in personal beliefs and preferences than actual facts. It is deeply subjective, and as such any notion of correctness is moot.
- ardy42 6y ago> Honestly, this is more about philosophy than anything else, and a part of philosophy much more rooted in personal beliefs and preferences than actual facts. > It is deeply subjective, and as such any notion of correctness is moot. Eh, not so much. Maybe that would be the case if we were talking about some idealistic "how it should be," but the GP's scenario wasn't that. Practically, in modern American society, park rangers are going to assume an obligation to rescue you without you having to make an explicit pact with them. To claim that it's otherwise is false.
- ElFitz 6y agoPeople assuming things doesn't mean there is a pact, explicit or otherwise. Isn't the whole idea of a social contract (which is what you describe, right?) of any kind debatable and really unprovable? Couldn't one say it simply is a responsibility they have collectively taken onto themselves, on their own? Of course, it doesn't change what will happen, what rescuers will do. Probably won't even change how they'll do it, or how they'll express their motivations from doing so. So... how do you prove or disprove the existence of said pact?
- sinker 6y agoMcCandless was explicitly escaping society. He had already vacated his family, friends, home, money, his vehicle. At this point he's a major outlier in terms of being a member of society.
- ardy42 6y ago>> That's incorrect. McCandless made that pact by being part of this society. The pact is implicit: it's the act of breaking it that requires effort (if it's even allowed at all). > McCandless was explicitly escaping society. He had already vacated his family, friends, home, money, his vehicle. At this point he's a major outlier in terms of being a member of society. So what? How McCandless felt or what his intentions were at any particular time doesn't actually change the situation vis a vis society and its rescue personnel.
- sopooneo 6y agoI agree with you, especially about McCandless. But I ask myself, where is the line? What level of risk stops being rude?