19 ms·

Of course it's not unfair. He doesn't owe you anything. He collected the coconuts, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Unfair would be if you collected

Of course it's not unfair. He doesn't owe you anything. He collected the coconuts, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Unfair would be if you collected the coconuts, and then somebody else came and took them from you just because he could. Which is not the case.

jljljl 13y ago
Let's say there are plenty of coconuts available for both of you, but specifically because of his hoarding you are risking hunger or starvation (I.e., you are good enough at climbing trees that you could feed yourself) Is it unfair or unjustified for you to take coconuts from him?
- adharmad 13y ago
  Yes both unfair and unjustified. By your principle, force is the only way to interact between humans without regard to any individual rights. Why not extrapolate this in today's world? Surely even wars can be justified by this principle. What the second person should do is to offer the first person something (maybe he can peel/cook coconuts better?) in return for some of the coconuts. Or find alternative means of food that do not involve climbing. The problem with these life-boat scenarios is that you try to twist the problem in a scenario wherein the only solution is to harm one or the other person. In real life, there are more options and nuances. And regardless, initiating force is a clear no-no, regardless of the justification - else society quickly escalates into mob rule and might-is-right.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    I agree that they are not realistic. And I do not agree that force is the only way to interact between humans. I'm also not trying to twist the problem to justify violence. The coconuts in this scenario are a shared resource. Neither individual owns the island or the trees. If there are plenty of coconuts on the island for both people, then a simple, "fair" solution for both people to survive is for each person to simply take the number of coconuts that they need. Yet the answers suggest that a good climber is entitled to take most or all of the coconuts as their ability allows, even if this causes harm to other cast aways. But theft by the poor climber is never justified. Both actions cause harm, but one is considered just while the other is not.
sejje 13y ago
@jljljl Yes, it's unfair to take his coconuts. He earned them, and risked injury (which could mean his life in this contrived example) to collect them, and they are his. How they will be used is up to him, if things are fair.
- jljljl 13y ago
  I find this interesting because: by hoarding the coconuts (without necessity in this example), the good climber is causing harm or injury to the poor climber. This injury is considered fair and justified. However, if the poor climber causes injury to the first by stealing the coconuts after the fact, this is seen as unfair.
  - sejje 13y ago
    It's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. How about this scenario: if the coconuts are equally retrieved, both climbers will have their lives threatened. Is it unfair for one of the climbers to take from the other at that point, when simply by having an equal share they are both threatening the life of each other? Of course you probably have a difference of opinion from your previous position in this case, though I'm not sure how you'll sort it out. I don't believe there's any inherent right of the poor climber to demand something from the good one. I think he has the right to exist and compete for the same coconuts, and that wherever that lands him is fair. I have a big heart, and I'd hope that any better climber would share his coconuts, but I don't believe they should ever be taken from him or that he should be prohibited from climbing just because he's good at it, etc.
    - 21echoes 13y ago
      > It's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. pretty sure causing someone to starve is, indeed, harming them.

jljljl 13y ago

Let's say there are plenty of coconuts available for both of you, but specifically because of his hoarding you are risking hunger or starvation (I.e., you are good enough at climbing trees that you could feed yourself) Is it unfair or unjustified for you to take coconuts from him?

adharmad 13y ago
Yes both unfair and unjustified. By your principle, force is the only way to interact between humans without regard to any individual rights. Why not extrapolate this in today's world? Surely even wars can be justified by this principle. What the second person should do is to offer the first person something (maybe he can peel/cook coconuts better?) in return for some of the coconuts. Or find alternative means of food that do not involve climbing. The problem with these life-boat scenarios is that you try to twist the problem in a scenario wherein the only solution is to harm one or the other person. In real life, there are more options and nuances. And regardless, initiating force is a clear no-no, regardless of the justification - else society quickly escalates into mob rule and might-is-right.
- jljljl 13y ago
  I agree that they are not realistic. And I do not agree that force is the only way to interact between humans. I'm also not trying to twist the problem to justify violence. The coconuts in this scenario are a shared resource. Neither individual owns the island or the trees. If there are plenty of coconuts on the island for both people, then a simple, "fair" solution for both people to survive is for each person to simply take the number of coconuts that they need. Yet the answers suggest that a good climber is entitled to take most or all of the coconuts as their ability allows, even if this causes harm to other cast aways. But theft by the poor climber is never justified. Both actions cause harm, but one is considered just while the other is not.

sejje 13y ago

@jljljl Yes, it's unfair to take his coconuts. He earned them, and risked injury (which could mean his life in this contrived example) to collect them, and they are his. How they will be used is up to him, if things are fair.

jljljl 13y ago
I find this interesting because: by hoarding the coconuts (without necessity in this example), the good climber is causing harm or injury to the poor climber. This injury is considered fair and justified. However, if the poor climber causes injury to the first by stealing the coconuts after the fact, this is seen as unfair.
- sejje 13y ago
  It's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. How about this scenario: if the coconuts are equally retrieved, both climbers will have their lives threatened. Is it unfair for one of the climbers to take from the other at that point, when simply by having an equal share they are both threatening the life of each other? Of course you probably have a difference of opinion from your previous position in this case, though I'm not sure how you'll sort it out. I don't believe there's any inherent right of the poor climber to demand something from the good one. I think he has the right to exist and compete for the same coconuts, and that wherever that lands him is fair. I have a big heart, and I'd hope that any better climber would share his coconuts, but I don't believe they should ever be taken from him or that he should be prohibited from climbing just because he's good at it, etc.
  - 21echoes 13y ago
    > It's your perception that the good climber is causing harm to the poorer. pretty sure causing someone to starve is, indeed, harming them.