Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Which one dies? Your friend or foe?

Philosophy Forum
» Young Philosophers Forum
» Which one dies? Your friend or foe?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This thread isn't here for the discussion of religion. In Jewish law, if an enemies donkey is suffering from a heavy load , and a friends donkey is suffering from a heavy load, than it is a greater deed to help the enemy first because it is showing that you are doing it for the sake of helping the donkey, and not just to help your friend.

So the question is.... If your friend and your enemy are both about to die... which one do you save?

@Zacrates,

Both, as you never said they'd be like, half the Earth away, so...

@Zacrates,

The friend of course. The enemy is my enemy for a reason and might not even deserve to be saved. If you save your enemy instead of saving your friend you are just stupid and a bit mean. Saving the enemy's donkey on the other hand, that's a completly different story.

@Lily,

What if your enemy is your friends best friend? And your friend wants you to save him? If you save your friend then your friend will be mad at you, therefore he wont be your friend (anymore).

@Zacrates,

What if the enemy is beautiful blonde with loads of money and will give you her undying love forever?What if your friend ...oh this could go on forever...

@Zacrates,

You have a moral obligation both to your "enemy (a good man ought to have no man as his enemy)" and to your friend. Whereas it would indeed be obvious that the action is performed solely out of duty if you help the enemy, you nonetheless have an equal responsibility for them both, and there's no reason why backwards-looking considerations ought not be in your consideration. I'd help the friend.

@Zacrates,

Zacrates;66111 wrote:

This thread isn't here for the discussion of religion. In Jewish law, if an enemies donkey is suffering from a heavy load , and a friends donkey is suffering from a heavy load, than it is a greater deed to help the enemy first because it is showing that you are doing it for the sake of helping the donkey, and not just to help your friend.

So the question is.... If your friend and your enemy are both about to die... which one do you save?

A good man wouldn't have an "overloaded" donkey.

@Zacrates,

yeah it is very situational... i mean... to be honest with ya... depending the risk it takes on my part to do the saving im not sure id have it in me to save either... my daughter needs me.... i mean i cant even imagine a situation that puts us all together.... and even if you say well just for the sake of saying... like a test to see where you morally stand... its still quite irrelevant... but its fun to make you wonder what you're reaction truly would be... no matter how many times you play it through your head, situations hardly go as imagined. what if its your fault the enemy is at deaths risk... but your friends own stupidity got him in the situation. who deserves the rescuing... and who are you to judge who lives and dies.

if you had the ability to save but denied the opportunity is it a degree of murder?

@sarathustrah,

sarathustrah;68989 wrote:

yeah it is very situational... i mean... to be honest with ya... depending the risk it takes on my part to do the saving im not sure id have it in me to save either... my daughter needs me.... i mean i cant even imagine a situation that puts us all together.... and even if you say well just for the sake of saying... like a test to see where you morally stand... its still quite irrelevant... but its fun to make you wonder what you're reaction truly would be... no matter how many times you play it through your head, situations hardly go as imagined. what if its your fault the enemy is at deaths risk... but your friends own stupidity got him in the situation. who deserves the rescuing... and who are you to judge who lives and dies.

if you had the ability to save but denied the opportunity is it a degree of murder?

Thank you Sara. Life is a bit confusing, isn't it? Trying to find logic in it, itself, is arduous. to say the least. Logic is what supports our rationalization or is rationalization itself. It gives us justification to do what we know is not right, because we haven't figured out what "is right". Ha. Life is paradoxical. The more we try to understand it and define it, the more complicated it becomes. IMMHO. Would it be nice to just keep it simple. :a-ok:

William

@Zacrates,

But (taking this from Plato's Republic) what if your enemy is a good, honest man, and your friend is a bad man? It is just in your eyes your friend is good, but in reality he isn't?

@Zacrates,

Zacrates;69452 wrote:

But (taking this from Plato's Republic) what if your enemy is a good, honest man, and your friend is a bad man? It is just in your eyes your friend is good, but in reality he isn't?

I'd probably still save my friend, you don't let the poeple you love die and the people you hate live.

@Zacrates,

You have a good point, but it still doesn't answer my question

@Zacrates,

Zacrates;69452 wrote:

But (taking this from Plato's Republic) what if your enemy is a good, honest man, and your friend is a bad man? It is just in your eyes your friend is good, but in reality he isn't?

Hello Zac.
How could a good and honest man be an enemy?
William

@William,

William;69479 wrote:

Hello Zac.
How could a good and honest man be an enemy?
William

Maybe you're always competing against him, and he usually wins. Or/and you totally disagree with himin important issues. Or maybe you're a bad guy and that's why he is your enemy.:sarcastic: But wouldn't really matter, because if you were a bad guy you would definitely not save him.

@Zacrates,

Lily pretty much gave my answer, and if you read the introduction (book 1) to Plato's Republic in the beginning, you will understand where i am coming from.

@Zacrates,

Zacrates;69684 wrote:

Lily pretty much gave my answer, and if you read the introduction (book 1) to Plato's Republic in the beginning, you will understand where i am coming from.

The library next you mean? Smile

It will be on my to-read-list. :shifty:

@Zacrates,

Helping your enemy was only to show you wanted to help the donkey. If there is no donkey, then help your friend.

@Lily,

Lily;69568 wrote:

Maybe you're always competing against him, and he usually wins. Or/and you totally disagree with himin important issues. Or maybe you're a bad guy and that's why he is your enemy.:sarcastic: But wouldn't really matter, because if you were a bad guy you would definitely not save him.

Perhaps you can find the answer in the language you are using; such as "compete". Substitute "understanding or cooperation", and see where that takes you. In our language we we use "defensive" words. Such as when one forms an opinion, he will seek only that which reinforces that opinion. IMO, is competition healthy? I think not. I think it is deadly.

Thanks for your response.
William

---------- Post added at 07:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

GUILLOTINEinc;69852 wrote:

Helping your enemy was only to show you wanted to help the donkey. If there is no donkey, then help your friend.

If this is logic, it is impossible logic in that there is no logic to the scenario for the good man would not overload his donkey. The donkey is equating that both good and bad are the same making it impossible to derive any meaning from it. IMO

William

@Zacrates,

Zacrates;66111 wrote:

So the question is.... If your friend and your enemy are both about to die... which one do you save?

there is no donkey in this scenario

@GUILLOTINEinc,

GUILLOTINEinc;69861 wrote:

there is no donkey in this scenario

It depends on how much you hate your enemy.............

Philosophy Forum
» Young Philosophers Forum
» Which one dies? Your friend or foe?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Which one dies? Your friend or foe?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know