Some notes on Everest, individualism and personal responsibility
If, as current scientific research suggests, humans are predisposed to "care" for others due to evolutionary factors (cooperation is necessary or at least was) and if neurologically in some way we are (mostly) prisoners of our own desires, then it does seem as if government must intervene in situations where human safety is imperiled.
On Everest, many people chose to climb the mountain despite significant risk and limited preparation in many cases (according to National Geographic, June 2012, 1 our of 100 die). Some might argue that is their choice--if they want to take that risk, let them. This is similar to people who refuse to purchase health care--we might respond, well then if they get sick, injured etc. then they will suffer the consequences of their choice. Philosophically, these responses might make sense from an individualistic, personal responsibility standpoint, but the reality is that someone ends up putting themselves on the line, either with regards to their own safety (trying to rescue someone on Everest) or economically (taking on the care of an uninsured person who refused to buy insurance) in order to "care for" another human being.
We could argue that rescuing someone on Everest is the rescuer's choice, providing care for someone injured is that person's choice, but if we are biologically evolved to care, then how is that a choice? In both cases, the person seeking out adventure (which research might suggest is largely the consequence of the person's endorphin's--that's what the June Atlantic suggests)
did not really choose to risk his/her life anymore than the rescuer did. Are they "prisoners of their own biology". . .
If so, or if we agree that is "mostly" so with a high degree of probability, then the only answer (until we can biologically offer the opportunity to change our biology as we would desire--take a pill to be less caring or less risk taking, etc) is to use government or some outside instituted system to reign in these problems where they might infringe on someone else's safety (The Everest case) and, perhaps, on their economics (the insurance case).
Where it doesn't infringe on someone else's safety (if someone wants to kill or harm oneself and doesn't involve anyone else . . .?) then it seems government does not have the right to intervene. . . Unless we are going to argue that because they are prisoners of their own biology, we have to intervene. . .
Perhaps we can let people "be" in their own biology and only impose outside control when their "being" somehow could harm others?
What kind of ethics is this?
On Everest, many people chose to climb the mountain despite significant risk and limited preparation in many cases (according to National Geographic, June 2012, 1 our of 100 die). Some might argue that is their choice--if they want to take that risk, let them. This is similar to people who refuse to purchase health care--we might respond, well then if they get sick, injured etc. then they will suffer the consequences of their choice. Philosophically, these responses might make sense from an individualistic, personal responsibility standpoint, but the reality is that someone ends up putting themselves on the line, either with regards to their own safety (trying to rescue someone on Everest) or economically (taking on the care of an uninsured person who refused to buy insurance) in order to "care for" another human being.
We could argue that rescuing someone on Everest is the rescuer's choice, providing care for someone injured is that person's choice, but if we are biologically evolved to care, then how is that a choice? In both cases, the person seeking out adventure (which research might suggest is largely the consequence of the person's endorphin's--that's what the June Atlantic suggests)
did not really choose to risk his/her life anymore than the rescuer did. Are they "prisoners of their own biology". . .
If so, or if we agree that is "mostly" so with a high degree of probability, then the only answer (until we can biologically offer the opportunity to change our biology as we would desire--take a pill to be less caring or less risk taking, etc) is to use government or some outside instituted system to reign in these problems where they might infringe on someone else's safety (The Everest case) and, perhaps, on their economics (the insurance case).
Where it doesn't infringe on someone else's safety (if someone wants to kill or harm oneself and doesn't involve anyone else . . .?) then it seems government does not have the right to intervene. . . Unless we are going to argue that because they are prisoners of their own biology, we have to intervene. . .
Perhaps we can let people "be" in their own biology and only impose outside control when their "being" somehow could harm others?
What kind of ethics is this?
Comments
Post a Comment