Part 2. The Stranger and the Boatman Continuation from #1: (SG) Anyway, for your interest only, here are my thoughts. First, the order. The puzzle did not originate from me, and so I must follow the rules just like you did and place them in some sort of order. (desertrat) Must I? Since moral values are subjective, that is, they depend upon or are derived from the subject, the only real rational determination that can be made is that they are all on equal moral ground. None have committed any crimes, at worst, some have engaged in vices but whether a thing be a vice or a virtue, that is for the individual to decide. Shall we say that the idea that they MUST be rated is the first thing you've plucked out of the air. (SG) I would have liked to have placed the boatman and the stranger as joint top, i.e. almost guiltless. There is really very little to choose between these two. On a fine balance, I chose the stranger as the most moral. Here is my order:   Stranger (S) Boatman (B) Man (M) Woman (W) Friend (F) A brief word about each: - Stranger and Boatman: Two important points here. 1) Neither the boatman nor the stranger are in any way involved in this drama between the man and the woman. They are peripheral players. (desertrat) And what difference does this make from their individual perspectives? Are you suggesting we objectively judge them and rank them according to what we subjectively consider virtuous or vicious? (SG) 2) Neither the boatman nor the stranger have any moral duty to become involved or to help in any way. (desertrat) No one at any time has a moral duty to perform any act save that which he or she as an individual has obliged himself or herself to perform. So, this makes no difference objectively. There is no reason to even mention it. I'm beginning to wonder just how coherent your moral perspective is. (SG) The man and the woman are responsible (entirely) for their own predicament (being separated) and it is their responsibility to sort out their own problems. They may legitimately ask for help, of course, but it is not beholden upon either the boatman or the stranger to give it. Only the doctrine of altruism holds that you must sacrifice your like-values to perfect strangers. This doctrine holds: "From each according to his ability to give; to each according to his need" A more evil doctrine never existed. (desertrat) Methinks you've read a little bit too much Ayn Rand. You've also crossed a fine threshold here without even realizing it. It is one thing for an individual to say for himself (or herself) that he himself must live, for example, by the rule, "from each according to his ability to give; to each according to his need," or any other rule, and quite another thing for one individual to compel another to live according to a rule not of his (or her) own choosing. In the first case, he holds himself and only himself to a certain moral standard. In the other case, he declares himself at war with the individual who does not share his unique moral values. The fine line is crossed when the fundamental value of one individual is not that men should live in peace but that men should live according to a certain moral standard. Living at peace with others becomes only a secondary value applicable only so long as all others abide by the standard determined by that individual. (SG) The boatman and the stranger are both 'guilty' of a very slight lack of compassion - that's all. (desertrat) So YOU say. They would probably not think much of your accusation that they are uncompassionate. They might even think of you as having some "crazy" belief. Objectively, the fact you consider them "guilty" of a very slight lack of compassion is no more valid than the woman's claim that they are extremely lacking in compassion or their own claims that they are not lacking in compassion in the least. (SG) A good way to test situations like this is to extend them into the ridiculous. Let's say the woman only need one penny to get across and the stranger would not give it to her unless she slept with him every night for a year. The principle is the same, I think you would agree. (desertrat) You're right. No crimes involved. This is purely a moral decision, the consequences of which they individually must determine. You might think the stranger niggardly, while others might fantasize about striking such deal. (SG) Or let's say that the woman was half a penny short of the fare and the boatman still refused to take her. Again, the principle is the same. (desertrat) Right. He's still under no legal obligation whereas his moral obligations are for him to decide. He could even refuse to take here across regardless of how much money she had simply because he opposed, for example, the interracial union of the man and the woman. Refusal to live by a certain moral standard is not a crime. On the other hand, refusal to live by certain moral standards makes other people think you're an ass. (SG) Or, extend it the other way. The woman has left a halfpence piece on the opposite bank, three miles away and wants the boatman to row her for free so that she might recover it. Should he do this out of compassion for her predicament? (desertrat) That's for the boatman to decide. We can't say "should" or "shouldn't" without being prejudiced ourselves. (SG) Or, she wishes to borrow $10,000 from the stranger so that she might give it to the man for him to pay off a gambling debt. Should the stranger lend it out of 'compassion'. Now in a rational philosophy, everything is based upon an exchange of values. Not sacrifice. Not altruism. This allows us to unscramble the problem of how 'evil' the boatman and stranger are being. (desertrat) Oh please! The only rational determination, as I have stated earlier, is that all individuals are on equal moral ground so long as they don't trespass the limits of legal duty. The words "sacrifice" and "altruism" are meaningless. Every voluntary trade is a "sacrifice" of one thing for the benefit of gaining something more "valuable" where value is judged subjectively by the individuals involved. (SG) A rational man would give the woman one penny to get across, without asking for anything in return. Why? Because the smug feeling of helping her would far out-weigh the value of a penny. Should he give her $10? Probably not in this situation. (desertrat) And why not, oh rational man? Who is to say it is worth less than $10, this smug feeling of helping her become reunited with her boyfriend? (SG) If it was to reach her drowning infant son, then yes, because the feeling of having saved a life has a higher value (for him) than $10. (desertrat) But then, what if the stranger reasoned that the woman would be better off in the long run if she were to loose that infant son? You might think such a man would be a "monster" and he might think the same of you, but to him, the thought of the infant perishing leaving the mother free from the burden of caring for it has more value to him than the cost of his $10 and the price of seeing the woman suffer by trying to provide for a child when she has not the means to do so. And what of the stranger's feelings for the infant? Suppose this stranger is morbidly depressed and views life as one misery after another. The only reason he doesn't kill himself is that he lacks the courage to overcome that primal instinct for survival. He might think the infant better off dying in infancy than living to old age. He might actually envy the infant because he understands the anguish of the mother. The man makes a "rational" decision not to give and you make a "rational" decision TO give, but the rationality depends on subjective values. (SG) In the above puzzle, should he give her $100 to reach her lover? Certainly not. This is definitely not a life or death situation. It's just a silly incident for which she is responsible. Furthermore it is an incident which has no serious consequences. (desertrat) Or so you "reason." Not everyone feels the same as you. Your system of values is an abomination to some. Have you read "Romeo and Juliet?" Have you ever loved? Do you think love and longing are just silly emotions with no serious consequences? (SG) Should he have asked for sex in return for $100? He can ask for the moon on a stick if he wants to! This is just the offer of a trade. She can tell him to get lost, or jump him immediately. The offer of a trade (no matter how one-sided it might appear) is not coercion. I can legitimately offer you $5 for your house. You could then tell me to take a jump, but no harm has been done and I did not coerce you. The standard 'extension' of this problem is this: A man is driving through the desert and sees a broken-down jeep with a half-dead woman hanging out of it. He stops. She begs him for a drink and a lift back to town. He agrees if she will have sex with him there and then, otherwise he's leaving her to die. The same problem, right? Just a difference of scale. In this example, for a rational man the good feeling of having saved a woman's life for no effort on his part, is preferable (of FAR higher value) to the transitory feeling of forced sex with a desperate partner. (desertrat) "Forced sex?" Didn't you say earlier, "(t)he offer of a trade (no matter how one-sided it might appear) is not coercion?" I thought you were going to be coherent. (SG) The stranger is better than the boatman because he has absolutely no part in this drama. The very mild good feelings he would get from helping in this insignificant situation are not of equal value to $100. Probably one dollar would cover it. He is right to refuse to part with a life-value just because someone 'needs' it. (desertrat) I must again say, "Oh please!" The stranger is "better" than the boatman on purely subjective grounds. None of the characters has any real "part" in the drama or all of the characters have an equal "part." They are all equally weighing the advantages against the opportunity costs based on their individual system of moral values. Nobody has committed a crime. No decision of any individual can be made by any other individual and though one individual might consider the other to be irrational, he cannot be certain because his values are subjective. (SG) The boatman is also not responsible for this situation. (desertrat) As if the man and woman were "responsible" for having been born on different sides of the river or for having fallen in love with a person from the "wrong" side of the river. (SG) He is a businessman who exchanges his time and effort for money. (desertrat) In other words, it is likely that he is a shrewd niggardly man (judging, of course, from the point of view of anyone who, being in the boatman's shoes, would do business differently.) The best we can say, of course, is that he lives by a moral code that we may or may not appreciate. (SG) He is entitled to charge double, or triple if he can get away with it. (desertrat) Coherency alert! As if the offer of a trade which is extremely advantageous to him is "getting away with something." (SG) He is not obliged to ferry anyone across who 'needs' a free ride. (desertrat) Unless, of course, he obliges himself, however irrational his reasons might seem to anyone else. (SG) Sainsburys are not obliged to hand out free food to those who 'need' it. Just because the woman needs to get across, this does not mean that the boatman (or anyone) must respond to her need. However, his lack of compassion is slightly worse than the stranger's because the lady had the normal fare, and so the boatman would have been paid reasonably for his services. (desertrat) Damn right! Personally, and this is a very subjective sentiment, I'd think the guy was being an incredible ass for taking advantage of his monopoly this way. I'd refuse to cross the river on principle or I'd open a river crossing and sight-seeing entreprize and put the bastard out of business with negative publicity about how he used to take advantage of his monopoly. (SG) Still he is not obliged to carry her at any price - even $10,000 if she offers. It is his boat, his oars, his arms, his energy. No man or woman through their 'need' has a right to create a mortgage on him and demand his services. (desertrat) This is true but though a person lives by his legal duties and we can therefore live at peace with him, his moral values may be such that we may not enjoy ourselves in his presence. Legal duties and obligations are not the same as moral duties and obligations. Legal duties and obligations can be determined rationally by even the most simple of minds, moral duties and obligations are difficult for even the wisest of men to determine for himself. No one has a prayer of determining the moral duties and obligations for another. Only a very simple-minded "intellectual" would even try. The best anyone can do is to make available to others of the benefit of their own experiences. The only impartial objective determination we can make is that each person has made the best moral decision they could make given their unique circumstances. Everyone is morally equal. (SG) Next comes the man. Part 3. The Woman and the Man