The Ethics of Hoarding and Quasi-Hoarding, Part II
Neither the comments nor the e-mails I got about the first discussion of hoarding addressed the toughest kind of case, to wit:
Realizing that things don't always go as they should, Smith keeps a medium-sized store of supplies in his basement. This requires a moderate investment of time and money on his part. Others in his community fail to do so. Then disaster strikes. It isn't clear when help will arrive. There is, let's say, a 50/50 chance that Smith's supplies will see him through the disaster. Note: Smith does not run out and buy up supplies when disaster looms, he's already got them as part of a policy of preparedness, perhaps recognizing that this is his civic duty, perhaps doing it for that reason rather than for selfish reasons. So, if hoarding is stockpiling supplies after disaster is imminent, Smith is not hoarding.
Which of the following is true, or closer to being true?
A. Smith is obligated to divide his supplies up more-or-less equally among people in his community, perhaps even giving everyone one meal, exhausting his supplies.
B. Smith has no (moral--nobody cares about legal) obligation to give any of his supplies away. Keeping them all to himself does not make him a bad person. After all, his neighbors in essence cut their own throats. It is as if they had squandered all their money while Smith diligently saved his, and then they demanded that he give them some of his because he has so much.
Now, this is the kind of case that often drives people to want to consider a third alternative, but the middle way will just muddle the issue. You might say that:
C. Smith has to give away half his supplies and he gets to keep half.
But given what we've supposed in the case, this is really not much different than A, so we might as well consider A.
I'm somewhat inclined to think that these cases are similar to "cut the rope" cases--cases in which there is good reason to believe that the only real options are (a) everybody dies and (b) someone survives. The supply/hoarding cases are more confusing because of the epistemic problems mixed in with them. Unlike cut-the-rope cases, it's far less clear what will happen as a result of either decision. But, as usual, it's important to settle the question of principle before we start mucking around with the practical complications.
Any ideas?
Neither the comments nor the e-mails I got about the first discussion of hoarding addressed the toughest kind of case, to wit:
Realizing that things don't always go as they should, Smith keeps a medium-sized store of supplies in his basement. This requires a moderate investment of time and money on his part. Others in his community fail to do so. Then disaster strikes. It isn't clear when help will arrive. There is, let's say, a 50/50 chance that Smith's supplies will see him through the disaster. Note: Smith does not run out and buy up supplies when disaster looms, he's already got them as part of a policy of preparedness, perhaps recognizing that this is his civic duty, perhaps doing it for that reason rather than for selfish reasons. So, if hoarding is stockpiling supplies after disaster is imminent, Smith is not hoarding.
Which of the following is true, or closer to being true?
A. Smith is obligated to divide his supplies up more-or-less equally among people in his community, perhaps even giving everyone one meal, exhausting his supplies.
B. Smith has no (moral--nobody cares about legal) obligation to give any of his supplies away. Keeping them all to himself does not make him a bad person. After all, his neighbors in essence cut their own throats. It is as if they had squandered all their money while Smith diligently saved his, and then they demanded that he give them some of his because he has so much.
Now, this is the kind of case that often drives people to want to consider a third alternative, but the middle way will just muddle the issue. You might say that:
C. Smith has to give away half his supplies and he gets to keep half.
But given what we've supposed in the case, this is really not much different than A, so we might as well consider A.
I'm somewhat inclined to think that these cases are similar to "cut the rope" cases--cases in which there is good reason to believe that the only real options are (a) everybody dies and (b) someone survives. The supply/hoarding cases are more confusing because of the epistemic problems mixed in with them. Unlike cut-the-rope cases, it's far less clear what will happen as a result of either decision. But, as usual, it's important to settle the question of principle before we start mucking around with the practical complications.
Any ideas?
posted by Winston Smith at
10:02 AM
1 Comments:
Principle: If everyone was in the same starting position as Smith, he has no moral obligation to share. If Smith was able to provide for himself while others couldn't because he started with an advantage, then he has a moral obligation to share.
Practical: Once everyone starts dehydrating and starving while Smith remains in good health, Smith will share or die, and perhaps both.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home