Our island of some 3,000 residents is vulnerable to winter storms, major earthquakes and ferry outages that could leave us on our own for two to three months. A few of us have formed a disaster-preparedness group. If the big quake hits, relief will focus on mainland population centers, and our county’s emergency-management department urges us to be prepared for over a month without help. We’ve been stockpiling food, water filters and medical supplies. Recently, some members raised the issue of sharing: If neighbors came asking for food, the pressure to say yes would be immense in our close-knit community. We can’t be the emergency food bank for everyone; once word spread, our stores could be quickly drained, leaving us no better off than those who hadn’t prepared. Yet ethically, could we let others suffer while hanging on to our supplies? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
In Aesop’s fable of the grasshopper and the ant, the grasshopper sings all summer while the ant stores up food for the winter ahead. When the hard times come, the grasshopper begs the ant for sustenance. In La Fontaine’s tart retelling, she replies, “You sang? … Well, now dance.” The moral of the tale isn’t, of course, that you should mock the imprudent as they starve. It’s that, like the ant, you should prepare for the prospect of hardship, just as you and your friends are setting out to do.
What should the ant have said? That depends. If feeding the grasshopper meant imperiling her own survival, she had every right to decline the request (preferably less discourteously). If she had more than enough, though, and the grasshopper was at death’s door, withholding aid would be hard to justify. Your worry is not about the first grasshopper but the second, the third, the 10th, the 20th. At some point, you would be entitled to respond like the ant.
Now, I’m struck by your assumption that islanders might be left in dire need for weeks or months after an earthquake or a storm or — most puzzling — a ferry outage. If people there were starving, would no one be able to get them off island or airlift provisions in? Delays in cleanup and logistics are one thing; an outright inability to help desperate people for months would signal a profound failure of public planning.
Which brings us to the obvious point: Your emergency-management department has essentially told you not to count on it in a real emergency. That means the island needs a broader plan. The smart move, before any crisis, is to push for a communitywide system — whether built around neighborhood groups or some other model. With that groundwork, each group can care for its own members without being drained by others. But you should prod the county too: If the island is this vulnerable, the government has some responsibility to help shore up its resilience. Then the odd grasshopper truly in need won’t starve, and the ants won’t have to choose between compassion and survival.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a woman whose brother drinks too much and is an unpleasant drunk. She wrote:
“A couple of years ago, I took him and his wife to dinner for his birthday. He drove my electric car there — he wanted to try it — but on the way back, because he’d been drinking, his wife drove while he sat in the back. He quickly became abusive, leaning forward, shouting foul language and physically interfering with her. If she hadn’t been there, I would have put him out to walk home. Instead, I told him to knock it off, which did little to help. We are in our 60s and 70s, and he has been argumentative, even when sober, since childhood. I ask myself: Why keep putting up with this? Since that night, I’ve largely severed contact. … His wife still invites me to family holidays. I make excuses not to go. She and I get along, but she reminds me that for him “family comes first” and that I’m hurting him. Maybe I mean to. But the bigger truth is that life is easier this way, and I don’t miss the relationship at all. Am I unreasonable to have cut him off?” — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
“The scene in the car, it seems, condensed years of small trespasses into a few sharp minutes. Your brother’s drinking isn’t new, and neither is his tendency toward argument. You and your brother are in your 60s and 70s now; you’ve lived with this pattern since your youth. You’ve just stopped putting off the issue of why you should keep putting up with it. There’s a case to be made for trying to help him … but that hinges on a prior question: Should you stay close? My N.Y.U. colleague Samuel Scheffler has argued that relationships we value generate responsibilities. We treat certain bonds as special; in valuing them, we accept special obligations. Siblinghood is often one of those bonds. Plainly, this bond has lost its value for you and brings more wariness than warmth. If so, the obligation to sustain it weakens.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
As a physician specializing in addiction medicine, there is a strong ethical case for the letter writer to reach out to her brother rather than cut off contact without explanation. At the very least, the brother deserves to understand why the relationship is at risk. I would encourage the writer to frame any conversation around this specific episode rather than bringing up a long history of grievances, which can easily lead to defensiveness. A respectful, direct discussion about recent behavior opens the door to insight and reflection. These kinds of courageous, compassionate conversations are often pivotal. — Karen
⬥
The Ethicist’s response seems to have put the responsibility for avoiding a sibling relationship on the writer. “Relationships we value generate responsibilities. We treat certain bonds as special; in valuing them, we accept special obligations.” It seems to me that it was the brother who did not see this, or appreciate his responsibilities to this relationship. I applaud his sister for the many years of patiently waiting, until the final straw broke the camel’s back. Moving forward, be happy. — L.D.R.
⬥
I’ve been a substance-abuse counselor for decades, and I subscribe to a couple of premises. One, if alcohol causes a problem in your life, then you have a problem with alcohol. The brother’s drinking clearly causes a problem with his sibling and his wife. In addition, I subscribe to the idea that concerned individuals must change how they relate to the problem drinker — for example, indicating to the brother that you will leave his company if he has anything to drink (not, for instance, “more than one”). When important people change their behavior toward the problem drinker, it has an impact. I highly recommend CoDA (Co-Dependents Anonymous) or Al-Anon, or both, for the family. — Judy
⬥
As someone who has had to set boundaries with my own sibling, I relate to the letter writer’s predicament. While cutting a sibling off is sometimes warranted, I wonder if the mere fact that she took the time to submit this question shows that she is not quite ready to walk away. Also, the desire to teach her brother a lesson is a form of caring. Maybe some healthy boundaries set during an honest conversation could make a space for peace. And put the ball firmly in his court. — Rachel
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post I’ve Prepped for Future Disasters. Do I Have to Help Those Who Didn’t? appeared first on New York Times.
