I don't agree that self-defense in one's own home equates to self-preservation at the expense of others in a situation one put themselves into.

Not saying I wouldn't cut the power poles down. Wasn't there, don't know.

For darn sure I'll defend myself and my loved ones in my own home. And then I'd probably throw up.

Another way to look at the question is to examine it from the other perspective: if a stranger were likely to die would you inconvenience yourself to save them?

I think the answer would be Yes for everyone here. In practice there are a lot of people who will even place themselves at considerable risk to save a stranger's life (these people are often referred to as "firefighter", "policeman", etc).

Most of the disagreement in this thread stems from extremely different assessments of the risks imposed on others posed by loss of electricity for a few hours, and we're not all asking the same question.

I think the risk is low, though not zero, so I'm willing to view it as a "my life vs. significant inconvenience", and believe that there is a threshold where if my death was likely enough I'd inconvenience a lot of people even without asking (I'm not expecting a freebie and would expect to pay out a lot afterward).

Others view the risk as high and are essentially seeing an entirely different question "would you condemn another to save your life?" That's not the question anyone is answering when they say Yes.

Finally, if I ever face the question I doubt it will be a simply black & white issue. If I break that power line will someone die before it's repaired? I think it's unlikely (since they'd have died the last time the power went out) but there is a chance it might happen, just like there's a chance a rescuer dies any time you initiate SAR with your PLB.

(indeed you could always look at it that way: if a bridge washed out and your car went for a swim on a dark night and you managed to cling to a tree with your PLB ... would you trigger the PLB knowing that some sheriff's deputy was likely to also end up in the river? That there was a very real chance a SAR effort might result in a rescuer death?)

If I cut a power pole down there's a good chance it would fall on my head.

There's a PLB in my future.

Your first idea is critical I think, James.

Would I volunteer to inconvenience or even put myself in mortal danger to save a stranger? Absolutely.

Would I force someone else, essentially volunteer them for danger that they may not be prepared for, to inconvenience or put themselves in mortal danger to save myself? No.

I think there's a critical difference between calling 911 or activating a PLB versus forcing a whole community to respond to an emergency of this kind. Law Enforcement Officers, Fire and Rescue and SAR crews all volunteered for the jobs knowing that their lives could and will be placed in danger. That's why they are considered heroes.

As I stated previously, I wouldn't cut the power to save myself. That is a decision based on my moral code.

I'm not judging anyone who has a different code and would therefore choose differently than I.

I asked the question in the title to this thread "Would You Do It?" because I thought it would make an interesting conversation. It wasn't some kind of ploy to play gotcha on anyone. I think it's a worthwhile conversation and should continue.

I'd either fall it on myself or electrocute myself! Sort of like just because you have a chain saw doesn't mean you should use it.

A very deep philosophical question. I like to believe that although some moral codes (what to wear etc) differ, some human core values are universal.



A very bad chosen example. Human leaders go through great efforts to inhuman their enemies ("them"). This serves as justification to enable one particular group ("us") to do all sorts of nastiness to their enemies ("them"). The claim is that normal standards for behavior don't apply when dealing with enemies - they're "inhumed", and all sorts of nastiness is not only allowed, but encouraged (beheading, torture, rape, blown up by bombs etc). Beheading is not in anyones morale code - beheading is what you do to enemies when moral codes are suspended.

The last 100-150 years, Western civilization has gone through great effort to extend the definition of human to your enemies, which are not inhuman and are not to be tortured or massacred. You may still shoot or bomb someone for some military gain defined by your leaders, but not civilians. This is a fairly recent invention.

My point of this particular situation was that this guy did have some other choices, which were less potentially damaging, and he didn't choose them.


Dagny, throwing up afterwards is okay.

Sue

I am not sure if people understand just how remote Wollaston Lake is. If they got a road to there it is fairly recent. A lot of the reserves there are only served by ice(winter) roads, by boat or by plane.

I have worked in Northern Sask in the past as well as in Northern Alberta. You are pretty much in the NWT a far as terrain goes, except that NWT likely has denser population levels.

If I was in a similar situation I would do the same thing as he did.
I am glad he was found.

Hi chickenlittle, welcome aboard.

As you can see, passions are running high in the "yay" and "nay" arguments. This one touched a nerve. We're generally a bit more laid back around here.

Your points are well taken. That's big, wild country. If you get in trouble, you're not walking out. (On the other hand, the remoteness cuts both ways -- the community that lost power can't nip over to the local Costco to stock up on perishables. I assume the ice road is out, so it's air transport only until the lake clears. You can see how the argument gets tangled up in a hurry.)

The one thing we haven't discussed -- though Sue has hinted at it -- was the lead-up to this rather extreme event. We don't have all the details (it's a curiosity type news story) but there are hints of "gong show." At least that's the vibe I'm getting. ("Doctor, it hurts when I do THIS." "Well, don't DO that.")

Cheers,
Doug