3 ms·

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 g

by 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.

by jljljl 13y ago

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.