Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Survival & Sustenance Living Forum (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f51/)
-   -   Post Apocalypse Ethics? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f51/post-apocalypse-ethics-45105/)

Ploofy 07-13-2011 12:25 AM

Post Apocalypse Ethics?
 
If and when the SHTF, how much of a responsibility to help others do those of us still alive have? Is it worth the extra supplies/day cost to save a life? Even without some sort of payment?

Glockcurmudgeon 07-13-2011 01:17 AM

Wow, this is a good one...
 
I would be governed by how much I had for me and mine, and whether or not we could "afford" to help. Secondly, and admittedly personally subjectively, what could those helped contribute toward continued survival?

Sounds cold-blooded? Hardly. WHEN TSHTF, resources of all kinds will be severely limited, or more likely for most, nonexistent... Since survival denotes/demands steadily diminishing resources- until and/or if civilization can be restarted, skill sets and possessions become the currency of the day...

I don't think anyone wants to see women, children, anyone, turned away from food or succor... However, if it's food and supplies that you or your family need to survive, at least in my case, family comes first- my family...

I think any other answers must, by their very nature, be disingenuous, deceitful, delusional, or depraved... Either you establish rules, for yourself and others, or chaos ensues... Chaos is NOT synonymous with survival, unless you inflict it upon others...

Glockcurmudgeon, out...

dog2000tj 07-13-2011 01:30 AM

I would do everything in my power to save/help as many as I could ..... with the stipulation that they contribute something back.

Society 1.0 has too many freeloaders as it is, no reason to repeat that mistake with Society 2.0 :cool:

Dillinger 07-13-2011 01:40 AM

Good question.

Here's the problem with the scenario.

Odds are good that you either live where people can take care of themselves. Or you don't.

Like minded people seen to end up in the same areas. You a hippie, tree hugging, Birkenstock, plastic hater, you move to where those types are accepted (downtown Seattle for example)

You like trucks/SUV's, believe in hunting/fishing/shooting, flying an American Flag, Supporting the Troops, you probably don't move to the same neighborhood as those listed above.

Just sayin'

So when you ask the question, you have to factor that you just might not be the best equipped on the block. Believe it or not, you might not even be in the top 5 in the neighborhood. :eek:

What then?

So counter point to your most excellent question, what are you prepared to bring to the table to be part of the group that is taking care of business??

JD

neilage66 07-13-2011 01:40 AM

I guaran-damn-tee you, if the S really does HTF in spectacular fashion, the ethics rule book will be completely rewritten.

Sad but true.

Plan accordingly.

orangello 07-13-2011 02:02 AM

On a more basic level, you have to examine your objectives and goals for that period of your existence. Are you trying to start some sort of colony? Are you just trying to keep yourself alive as long as possible or until some event takes place or some goal is reached? Are you trying to keep your family alive and prepare a safe place for them to live?

Any remaining members of my family would most likely be just fine without me. I would only be out for myself and only for survival until a couple of personal goals could be met.

Of course, there is a saying about "the best laid plans of mice and men...". Complications happen.

Vincine 07-13-2011 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockcurmudgeon (Post 540016)
Since survival denotes/demands steadily diminishing resources- until and/or if civilization can be restarted, skill sets and possessions become the currency of the day...

Taking care of each other, especially in light of scarce resources, is exactly how civilization will be restarted. Otherwise it’s the law of the jungle and that's not a world I want to live in. That’s not to say I wouldn't have an interest in defending whatever nascent sustainable community I may have a part in developing.

You need to compute whether you can help 'them' more then 'they' can hurt you, or if it's the other way around. Sometimes your best security from people who have nothing to lose, is to give them something to lose.

NOVA 07-13-2011 02:09 AM

I recommend reading the book One Second After, written by William R. Forstchen and published by Forge. Based on an Electro-Magnet Pulse (EMP) scenario, the book cover claims it has been discussed both in Congress and at the Pentagon. It addresses your topic in depth.

Yunus 07-13-2011 02:15 AM

I would help others to the extent that I could with the limitation of ensuring that my family/friends are doing fine.

I don't believe people's ethics would change from what they are now. Just their circumstances which would likely bring the true character of many people to light.

NOVA 07-13-2011 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunus (Post 540067)
I would help others to the extent that I could with the limitation of ensuring that my family/friends are doing fine.

I don't believe people's ethics would change from what they are now. Just their circumstances which would likely bring the true character of many people to light.

September 1979, hurricane Frederick clobbered Mobile Alabama. We were without power for two weeks - I'm a first hand witness to how the whole neighborhood cooperated, shared their food and helped each other out. Also witnessed some folks not handle it too well after two weeks with no power.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.