Thought provoking scenario
How would you handle the following situation:
The day comes that the leaders of the Church give the call to gather up our food storage and head to the mountains and set up a tent city. As we arrive and start to set up, it becomes apparant that there is only one water source, a spring that flows in one part of the valley. Unfortunately, the man who has claimed that land as his is a little crazy and has decided that he isn't going to share any!
What is the right approach? How do we deal with this situation while still preserving fundamental rights of life, liberty and in this case especially, property?
Comments welcome!
posted by Chadder at 5:00 PM
5 Comments:
On the one hand, this is the man's property to do with as he sees fit. On the other hand is the "government" responsibility to uphold and protect the life of its citizens.
Obviously, every means should be used to reasonably convince the man that the spring should be shared for the good of all, but in the end, I would say that it would be the duty of the leadership to call the man to account (demand with stated consequences) for not helping to uphold the well being and life of the society he had chosen to establish himself in.
Great point, Corey. The other side to that coin would be to deny the man of benefits he could/would need from other members of a society.
In our Colloquium discussion last week we talked about the famous story of the Horse Whisperer who trained horses. One of the methods used was if the horse refused to do something asked of it, the man would turn his back on it. Horses can't stand it and would try to come around front. Eventually they realize that if they don't want to be shunned they have to comply and get the attention they need.
"…but in the end, I would say that it would be the duty of the leadership to call the man to account (demand with stated consequences) for not helping to uphold the well being and life of the society he had chosen to establish himself in."
In other words; Nationalize or Socialize the water supply for… how did Stalin put it?
Oh yes, “The common good.”
Why is it this mans responsibility to “…uphold the well being and life of the society…”? If he chose to have children then I can see him being obligated to fulfill that responsibility that he freely entered. But what contract did this man enter that he must give up his privacy, property and liberty by threat of death? In fact, the tool of force you would use to strip this mans most valued asset is the same tool that mankind had created to prevent such mob-like behaviours form ever occurring.
A yes or no answer to one question will determine what side of the line you are on. Ask yourself; do the ends justify the means?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home