Suppose a group of five men decide to take a journey, M1 - M5. M1, believing there to be difficult times ahead, works hard and gathers food, and carries twice as much food with him as the others on the journey. M2-M5, although capable of carrying more, do not do so. Midway through the journey, M3-M5 are completely out of food. M2, knowing himself, has paced well and has enough to last the journey, though uncomfortably. M1 has enough food to last him through the rest of the journey, comfortably.
The questions about my hypothetical are these:
1. Ought M1 to give food to M3-M5?
2. Ought M3-M5 be able to morally demand food from M1? How about M2 ?
3. If M1 is not willing to give up food for M3-M5, what actions may M2-M5 take in response? Why? Should M2 have equal say in the matter as M3-M5?
Changing the scenario in one aspect, suppose M1, were he to give amounts of food to M3-M5 sufficient to allow them to survive, runs the risk of starvation himself. Does that change your response to any of the above questions? Why?
Suppose M3-M5 were unable to carry more food, all other factors remaining the same? Does that change your response to any of the above questions? Why?
Thursday, 23. October 2008
I always wondered what you did late at night while I was asleep.
Now I know.
Put the Plato down.
Friday, 24. October 2008
CONFUSED!!!! M1 gathered food for the journey, however later you say that M1 - M3 are completely out of food, then as the last sentence say that M1 has enough food to last him through the journey?? Did I completely read something wrong (or not read something at all??)
Friday, 24. October 2008
Alison,
I thought I had posted the edited version…apparently not. Thanks for letting me know! I’ve updated!
–Jonathan
Friday, 24. October 2008
Ok - I thought that was what you were aiming for but I wanted to make sure. I have my own personal answers for all this and I will go with gut reaction responses. I will also go with M1 - M5 are just friends or aquaintances. Not sure if you had it in your mind that they are family? (And yes, for me that changes things)
1. If I was M1, then I probably wouldn’t, unless I knew it was a starvation issue.
2. To me, if M3 - M5 wasn’t willing to carry as much food as M1 then morally I wouldn’t think that they couldn’t demand anything. M2 has a fighting chance to at least ask M1 (see, #3).
3. To me, M2 has at least tried to make it through the journey with what he had gathered. I can’t think of what action they could take unless we are going toward a stealing aspect. I would think that M2 would have a little more say than M3 - M5.
Scenario Change: I think that I considered that in my first response being that if I was M1 and I knew that the others were in fact starving, I would share what I could.
Carrying less: Yes, that would probably also change my response, due to the fact that maybe M2 - M5 had an agreement that M1 would be the strong man of the group and therefore he was “designated” the carrier and the others would carry what they could. If that was the arrangement then all my answers above change.
Changing the scenarios: I suppose if I were a “good” christian, then I would do whatever I could for anyone else b/c God would always be there to provide for me if I was in need. I won’t say that I’m not a good christian, but I feel that I live in the reality that there are other people out there that will continue to take advantage of your generosity (Obviously, I don’t always have the faith that God will always provide for me - however it has worked for me before). Personally, I don’t want to be a doormat. I want to be able to help when I feel that I can. Call it good or bad….this is just me.
Thanks for posing the hypothetical though!
Sunday, 26. October 2008
I’m going with the Universal Destination of Goods, with heavy emphasis on CCC 2446, 2447B, 2423, 2402, 2405 and 2408.