This question is about letting people drown in their own mistakes.
For a hyperbolic illustrative example, just imagine this scenario.
Some people are standing over a frozen lake. Let three of these people be called X, Y, and Z.
For some arbitrary reason, a fight starts among the 3 of them.
X and Y continue fighting violently and maliciously while Z tries to avoid or escape the brawl. Unsurprisingly, during the violence, X and Y fall into the frozen lake, and are then incapable of climbing out to safety. Z, feeling betrayed by the onset of violence and threatened by involvement within the fight, neglects to offer any help to the others, contending that if they didn't want to drown in a frozen lake, then they shouldn't have put themselves in harm's way while risking the safety of the people around them.
So my question would be, is it smart for Z to just ignore them, based upon the notion that if X and Y were saved, they could just repeatedly get Z into trouble? Or is it smarter for Z to try and save them, although risking a furtherance of danger and harm?
In other words — if someone is being selfdestructive in order to smite you: should you try to help them in lieu of their goal of hurting you, or should you just observe their selfdestructive behavior and conclude that the consequences of their actions are their own punishment enough that there's no reason to intervene?
This question is about letting people drown in their own mistakes.
For a hyperbolic illustrative example, just imagine this scenario.
Some people are standing over a frozen lake. Let three of these people be called X, Y, and Z.
For some arbitrary reason, a fight starts among the 3 of them.
X and Y continue fighting violently and maliciously while Z tries to avoid or escape the brawl. Unsurprisingly, during the violence, X and Y fall into the frozen lake, and are then incapable of climbing out to safety. Z, feeling betrayed by the onset of violence and threatened by involvement within the fight, neglects to offer any help to the others, contending that if they didn't want to drown in a frozen lake, then they shouldn't have put themselves in harm's way while risking the safety of the people around them.
So my question would be, is it smart for Z to just ignore them, based upon the notion that if X and Y were saved, they could just repeatedly get Z into trouble? Or is it smarter for Z to try and save them, although risking a furtherance of danger and harm?
In other words — if someone is being selfdestructive in order to smite you: should you try to help them in lieu of their goal of hurting you, or should you just observe their selfdestructive behavior and conclude that the consequences of their actions are their own punishment enough that there's no reason to intervene?
JJnet user