4 ms·

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

• 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 ago
    People 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?