[Text] [Anon]

[grapeeater]

[He's been thinking over this for days. Is it his duty or not? It's not like he really needs the opinions of other people... but maybe another perspective might not hurt. Not like any of them here are normal, but some... are closer than he was.]

I've got a question. If you don't care, feel free to skip this over - there's no obligation to answer.

Say you're someone powerful, whatever that means to you. You might have money, you might have skills, or you might have whatever else that gives you an advantage over other people.

Now say there's a threat, something that risks destroying you and the people you have an advantage over. If you do nothing, you might be safe but other people would die. But if you give everything, they might be safe but you would die.

How much are you obligated to give? Be selfish and survive? Or sacrifice yourself for people who might not be thankful? And why?

Comments

[anon text]

[whitehairedprettyboy]

This is hardly a question, really. Why on earth would I sacrifice myself for anyone else?

[anon text]

[grapeeater]

Because sometimes they're people you care about.

[anon text]

[whitehairedprettyboy]

Well, there's your problem, then, isn't it?

[anon text]

[grapeeater]

Is it?

[anon text]

[whitehairedprettyboy]

I'd certainly say so. If there's any benefit in caring about people, I haven't yet encountered it.

text;

[loveisanopendoor]

Well, that's obvious. If you have power over your people, then it's up to you to make sure you're doing what's best for them. If there's something that threatens both you and your people, you have to give as much as you can to make sure they're being accommodated for. Your power, if you think about it, comes from the consent of the people, so they're your priority. I mean, if you being there and your power over them is what's making the best scenario for them, in your eyes, you should do what you can to keep yourself in that position, as well. But you have to think about what it is that the people are going to need to prosper, even if it means putting yourself at a personal risk! It's the risk that anyone in a position of power over others has, and it's not something that should be taken lightly at all.

[A princess knows these things, after all! She might not be the most elegant or sophisticated princess, of course, but no one knows the importance of selflessness better than Anna does.]

Have you ever heard of the story of Damocles?

anon foreverrrrr;

[grapeeater]

So in your eyes, if it threatens them and you're above them, you have an obligation to keep them safe?

[It sounds like Takatora, really. But the real Takatora, not... what he's been hearing for months. Not judging him for his mistakes - not really. Just stating their values again and again until he gets it.]

The name sounds familiar. Something about a sword?

[loveisanopendoor]

Well, I'm a princess, so when I'm back home I always need to make sure what I do is the best for the people in my kingdom. I don't think that necessarily means you should do so by any means necessary, though! My sister Elsa is the queen, so she's a lot better with this sort of thing than I am; she's a really fair and just ruler, and she goes to really big lengths to make sure that everyone in Arendelle is taken care of.

[She's positive that their parents would be very proud of her.]

But it's not always easy. Being in charge of a kingdom can be really stressful, and all of the responsibility over the people drains her a lot sometimes, even though she has a lot of power. But if the people are happy, and they trust her, it's worth it! And I certainly agree with that, so I try to help her as much as I can. She knows she doesn't have to go through it alone, and that makes it a bit easier on her, too, I think.

The story of Damocles, though...Damocles was a man who wasn't of a very high social status, and he told his king, Dionysius, that he was very fortunate to have such power and all of the luxuries that come with it! And he suggested that the two of them should switch places for a day, so that the King could truly see just how fortunate he is to have such power. And Dionysius was very quick to oblige him, and he very eagerly made the arrangements so that the two of them could switch! So the next day, Damocles sits on the King's throne, happy that he's surrounded by all of the benefits that come with being King for the day...that is, until he looks up, and sees a giant sword right over his head, hanging only by a single hair from a horse's tail! And Damocles begs the King to leave the throne because he realizes now that to have power means that you have to come to terms with the responsibility that comes with it, and also realize how easy losing it can be...

[grapeeater]

A princess? Huh. But... what if someone were invading? Would you fight at the front lines for them? Or would you stay back and try to direct things from there?

... While I see the point of the story... wasn't Dionysius a god? Why did he have something like that around? Why was he being a king rather than a god, anyway?

[anon text forever]

[preybeforemeals]

That depends on how important those people are to you.

You're never obligated to die for anyone else. The complication comes in that some people are good at making you think they're worth dying for.

[forever and ever]

[grapeeater]

One of them in particular I care about more than anything else.

[preybeforemeals]

Enough that you would want to die for them?

[grapeeater]

For me? ... I'd want nothing more than her happiness. So if it came to it... yes.

Though I'm interested in what you would do.

text;

[angerpoints]

What the hell kind of question is that? If you've got power, you should use it to help people who need it. I don't care what your reason for not helping them would be - whether you're a selfish bastard or you're just too much of a chickenshit to step up and accept responsibility. If you know people are gonna suffer if you don't get involved and you decide to just stand back and let them?

You screwed up. Hell. You might as well've dug their graves and thrown them in them yourself.

[THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY ONE (1) YUSUKE URAMESHI, who slammed this message out with such unnecessary levels of force that he may have come dangerously close to damaging his keyboard. Clearly somebody got a nerve touched.]

anon foreverrrrrrrr

[grapeeater]

And if more people die because of your involvement?

[angerpoints]

You better not be telling me you think you should just give up and do nothing just because there's a chance you might screw things up even more.

[grapeeater]

Well in my case, I already have screwed things up.

[anon text forever]

[unkinder]

As most have already said, you are under no obligation to save anyone. It's not your responsibility to oversee the survival of everyone else, particularly when you may be at risk as well.

It all relies on whether or not you really care about these people enough that you would risk yourself to save them. And whether or not that is a selfish way of thinking about things is up for the individual to decide, isn't it?

[anon buddies yay]

[grapeeater]

What about one specific person, then? If you could save them, but it would put you in danger, are you obligated in that case?

[unkinder]

It doesn't change. You are never obligated. Even if it was someone who meant more to you than anything in the world, you getting killed to save them isn't something that needs to happen.

[grapeeater]

But if it's a possibility? Is it still acceptable to put yourself in danger for their sake?

[friendyousohard]

I can believe no one's pointed out how much of an oversimplification this is.

Look, most people are going to agree that the moral decision is to use your power to help. But how you go about that is important, and the degree to which you get involved can determine if you're actually a help or if you just end up making things worse. You're trying to create a vastly generic question out of something that can have hundreds of different scenarios. Depending on the threat, the "power" you have, and all sorts of other factors, getting involved directly in a way that threatens your life might not even be the best way to help! In fact, this may surprise you to hear but it usually isn't.

But I'll assume for the moment that this isn't as much of a general question as it looks like. Because frankly, if you'd never been in a situation like this you probably wouldn't even think to be asking this question. So let's assume for the moment that the scenario is one where your question makes sense. Say... there's an invading army, you have war training and those around you don't. You consider staying back to hold off the enemy while the others try to get their way to safety. You think that's the moral choice, and trying to keep yourself alive is selfish.

It's not. You have valuable knowledge and skills, and if you die they are lost. If at all possible, you want to keep yourself alive, because that could mean the difference between a few lives saved today and a lot of lives saved down the line. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved at all! Using your knowledge and combat ability to help as many people as you can get away, then falling back to guide them personally, is probably the best use of your skills in that scenario. It's still a sacrifice, because we're going with your original assumption that you'd be safe if you didn't get involved, but it's not a sacrifice of your life.

Honestly... those are usually more foolish than noble.

anon fivever

[grapeeater]

[He's... surprised. It's a really thorough answer to something that he expected a lot of knee-jerk reactions to.]

All right, I'll make it less general.

There are people you want to make sure get to safety, though they personally aren't interested in being saved. There are a small number of other fighters that can hold off the attacks, and conventional weaponry is useless against them so there's no sense in calling in armed forces.

In addition, the fighters are squabbling amongst themselves and refuse to work together to gain a weapon that could end the fighting. As a single fighter capable of taking on some of the invading attackers but not all of them, is it wiser to just move the people you want to be saved to safety? Or should you stay and fight, while the people you care about are in danger?

oh yes, also anon

[friendyousohard]

[That, in Twilight's opinion, is one of the biggest advantages of text. She can just read the whole thing as long as it takes to puzzle out a real, proper answer, rather than just rattling off the first thing that comes to mind. And that's what she's going to with this, as well.]

Interesting... Well, one thing I can see right off the bat is that it's more important than I imagined that you keep yourself alive. If the amount of fighters capable of combating the threat is already low, losing even one could be disastrous, even fatal.

The short term answer to your question is that I would definitely argue that fighting the enemy is the preferable option. For one thing, what happens if you withdraw and the other fighters lose without you? Is the enemy just going to stop? Unless you know for sure they will, all you've managed to do is delay the problem. But taking the enemy head on isn't wise either. I'd use guerilla tactics. Strike hard and fast, then flee before they can mobilize a counter force. If possible, disrupt their supply lines and damage their communications. Just hit anything that would slow them down and give you some breathing room.

The long term answer to your problem has already shown itself... someone needs to unite these fighters, or any other choice is just a temporary solution at best. And if no one else is going to do it, you may have to be the one who steps up. I realize that can probably seem like a monumentous task, but looking at the information you've given me, I can't see any either way you can save yourself or the people depending on you.

hooray, anon buddies!

[grapeeater]

In this case, guerrilla tactics weren't effective, and me uniting the fighters wasn't possible. It wasn't a conventional enemy.

I realize that giving a real life example wasn't fair... but I was curious what other people would do.

But you've given it a lot more thought than other people have. And if everyone in the situation had thought it out like this, maybe we would have won.