Survival Ethics

[GibsonFan]

I'm interested in how all of you feel about ethical considerations, when it comes to survival. I think I have a feel for the regular posters here; their comments tend to reflect thier general philosophy. So I'm confident this will be a discussion, not a controversy.

There are a whole lot of ethical/legal questions that could arise in a "survival" situation... from weapons legality, to trespassing, to raiding someone else's trap-line.

I'd like to open the conversation with the basics I came up with:

Ethical Tenets of Survival:

I alone am ultimately responsible for the well-being of myself and my loved ones. It is my duty as an able-minded adult to take reasonable precautions to ensure our safety and sustenance.

I have seen that our planet provides more than enough of everything we need, except for certain extreme climate areas. I take this as a sign that we are perfectly capable of thriving within a healthy ecosystem. Large-scale, or small.

I have respect for every form of life. Everything has its place. I'm not a big fan of mosquitoes, but the more I think about them, the more I appreciate bats.

I pledge to never show cruelty to any creature, human or animal. When hunting an animal, I will strive to be humane and merciful, and will be
grateful if I succeed. If circumstances dictate self-defense against man or beast, I will be humane if possible, and merciless if necessary.

I will share any knowledge/skills I have with anyone who's interested, but I reserve the right to keep certain camping, fishing and hunting spots to myself.

This is all just what I learned from my elders, and what I "feel" is right.

Looking forward to what you all have to add...

 

[ERdept]

Here's a story about ethics, read this....

http://travel.news.yahoo.com/b/rba_daily/rba_daily4853

or here's a copy....

Dead man walking: the survival of Lincoln Hall
Tue May 30, 7:33 PM ET


The news from Mount Everest this past week has been literally chilling. It's the deadliest climbing season since the notorious spring of 1996, chronicled by Jon Krakauer's film "Into Thin Air: Death on Everest" — as many as 15 people may have died so far this year, many in especially tragic circumstances, and several others are missing. For Jonathan Chester, a photographer and adventurer who is part of the team for our upcoming "In Search of Australia Extreme" expedition, these stories have struck particularly close to home. He files this report.

ADVERTISEMENT


"Bad News," read the e-mail subject heading. "I just heard that Lincoln Hall has died on Everest," wrote an Australian friend on May 26 at 4 a.m.


This was worse than bad. Just a week ago, I had met with Lincoln's wife and two teenage sons Dillon and Dorjay in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales while on assignment for Richard Bangs Adventures.

Lincoln and I had been part of the Australian climbing team that had made the first ascent of Mount Minto in Antarctica in 1987-88 nearly 20 years ago. We had then collaborated on the subsequent book "The Loneliest Mountain," the story the Australian Bicentennial Antarctic Expedition. We had kept in touch over the years and we would catch up when ever we were both back in Australia.


He was descending from the summit of Mount Everest, having achieved a goal that had eluded him on his previous Everest encounter back in 1984. A writer, magazine editor and mountain guide, 50-year-old Lincoln had taken the job of guiding 15-year-old Chris Harris and his father Richard on Everest; Chris was attempting to become the youngest person to climb Mount Everest as part of his "Seven Summits" bid. Lincoln, Chris and Richard Harris, and filmmaker Mike Dillon signed onto the "7 Summits Club" commercial expedition led by Alexander Abramov of Russia that was tackling Everest by the North Col route from Tibet.


Chris and Richard Harris abandoned their summit bids because of altitude sickness, but, feeling fit, Lincoln had gone on and reached the 8850-meter (29,035 feet) summit at about 9 a.m. on May 25. After some celebratory radio calls, he and the two Sherpas accompanying him headed back down. Not long afterward Lincoln was hit by cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) and became disoriented, ataxic and at 8800 meters (28,870 feet) collapsed. For almost 9 hours the Sherpas tried to help and lowered him down over very technical sections of the mountain. But under the influence of extreme altitude sickness, Lincoln became delusional and obstructive and they determined at 7 p.m. that they could not help him further.


With night coming on, expedition leader Abramov ordered the Sherpas to abandon him and save themselves, so they returned to the camp at 8300 meters suffering snow blindness. Abramov issued the news that Lincoln Hall had perished, and the report hit the wires across Australia soon after.


At 7 a.m. the next morning, American guide Dan Mazur was climbing towards the summit with some clients when they came across Hall who, though inert, showed weak signs of life. One report on EverestNews.com claimed Lincoln was sitting with his legs dangling over the face of the mountain half undressed and without a hat. They report his first words were, "I imagine you are surprised to see me here."


Mazur administered tea and radioed down to base camp. Immediately 13 Sherpas camped at the North Col (7000 meters) began climbing back up to rescue Lincoln, under the direction of Abramov. By 11 a.m., three Sherpas with medicine, oxygen and tea reached Lincoln at the Second Step (8600 meters) and with the help of Mazur and team they began to move him down on a stretcher.


The news that he was still alive was quickly transmitted to news services by "Project Himalaya," one of the other teams in Base Camp on the North side. They misreported that Mazur had gone onto the summit. This added fuel to the controversy that had erupted the week before when it was revealed that about 40 climbers on their way to the summit had passed by a British climber in a similar predicament, David Sharp, who eventually died. This had become a damning story for Everest climbers in the press.


Sirdar Mingma Gelu and more Sherpas arrived, and brought Hall to the North Col Camp at 7000 meters where he was treated by Russian Doctor Andrey Selivanov for "acute psychosis" and given oxygen while sleeping. So rapid is the recovery from edema after descending, Lincoln walked the last 500 meters into camp unaided. A further day-long descent brought him back down to Advanced Base Camp (ABC) and much thicker air — the best medicine for altitude problems.


From ABC, Lincoln was able to speak to his wife Barbara by phone. He told her that he has bad frostbite in his fingers, and Barbara answered that she would love him all the same even if he lost them all.


Project Himalaya guide and friend, Jamie McGuinness, says Hall still has a long way to go in his recovery. "There is a jeep for him and he should be back in Katmandu, if he is very lucky, today if not tomorrow, and back to the thick air."


It has been another very tragic season on Everest. As of this writing 10 deaths have been confirmed and possibly another 4 or 5 climbers have died as well. Abramov blames the good weather for the deaths, according to an online report.


"In season of 2006 on Everest the record amount of climbers, under our information — 15 persons [were] lost. Strangely enough, the reason for it [was] extremely good, windless weather. This unnatural weather for Everest proceeded from May, 10 till May, 25. This weather has allowed a plenty of climbers to reach the summit. In more severe conditions, they, probably, would stop [climbing] at lower heights."


All that can be said is that Lincoln Hall is one very lucky person to have survived cerebral edema and a night out on Everest in the death zone (above 8000 meters). His friends rejoice and thank the teams and Sherpas who risked their lives, their summit bids and dreams to save him from certain death.

 

[saturnine138]

I think most of us here would agree on these kinds of morals.

I put me and mine above others, but once they're taken care of, I'm always willing to share. I wouldnt raid someone else's trap line, but I might wait around until they come back and ask to share, and offer to reciprocate with a portion of anything I may catch later on. Any laws are secondary to what I believe needs to be done to survive. If I must "loot" a store after a disaster to stay alive, then so be it. I'd try to make it up to them if I make it out alive, but my life is more important then someone else's profits. I would never steal something from someone else that needed it though, I wouldnt do anything to intentionally harm anyone.

The part of that story about the climbers passing a dying man and not stopping to help was disturbing. I know it's an expensive trip and a once in a lifetime thing and all, but saving that guy's life is more important than climbing a mountain.

 

[Zombie Zeke]

The ethos of survival is to survive.
Nothing else matters, in its simplicity is its greatest problem.

 

[GibsonFan]

The ethos of survival is to survive.
Nothing else matters, in its simplicity is its greatest problem.

That's true. We choose to make it more complicated by adding ethics to the mix; but after all, that's what makes us human.

I have a hard time commenting on Everest-type expeditions... it takes a certain kind of ego to even attempt that, I guess. I damn sure like to think I wouldn't walk past a dying man if I could help it.

Re: looting, for instance, Katrina... I would turn a blind eye to anyone taking food or clothing from a store. Even an abandoned house. They have a right to provide for themselves however they can, screw WalMart. But people wading down the street with TV's and shopping carts full of sneakers? Gimme a break!

What about other legal considerations of a disaster like that? What do you do when the Nat'l Guard shows up to confiscate your guns? Personally, I think I'd turn over the old .22 and as for the rest... what they don't know, won't hurt me. I would obey law inforcement or military orders to evacuate, I don't see much point in making a stand against them. But if not forced to leave my home, I expect to be secure in it. 2nd and 4th amendments and all.

I do agree we have an obligation to give aid to fellow travelers. There are relatively few reasons not to stop and help an injured party. And I would have a pretty hard time turning away a hungry family knocking on my door, although I don't intend to shelter anyone but my own. I think I'd give them some staples/1st aid stuff and send them on. My innate mistrust of strangers would ratchet up a few notches in a real survival situation, I'm sure.

Thanks for your input, guys.

 

[cecyt1300]

If it were a situation like several people surviving a plane crash, or happening upon people in a katrina like situation, I would help the people by sharing what I knew, offering first aid, etc. Actually, I would do that in any encounter in which everyone there were lost, stranded, etc.

People robbing places for TV's, and any other impratical things is ridiculous. If people were coming up to my house or my camp looking to steal I would defend my stuff. If someone were worse off than I was, or couldn't provide for themselves I would try to help them, unless they tried to loot from me.

 

[Zombie Zeke]

That's true. We choose to make it more complicated by adding ethics to the mix; but after all, that's what makes us human.

I have a hard time commenting on Everest-type expeditions... it takes a certain kind of ego to even attempt that, I guess. I damn sure like to think I wouldn't walk past a dying man if I could help it.

Re: looting, for instance, Katrina... I would turn a blind eye to anyone taking food or clothing from a store. Even an abandoned house. They have a right to provide for themselves however they can, screw WalMart. But people wading down the street with TV's and shopping carts full of sneakers? Gimme a break!

What about other legal considerations of a disaster like that? What do you do when the Nat'l Guard shows up to confiscate your guns? Personally, I think I'd turn over the old .22 and as for the rest... what they don't know, won't hurt me. I would obey law inforcement or military orders to evacuate, I don't see much point in making a stand against them. But if not forced to leave my home, I expect to be secure in it. 2nd and 4th amendments and all.

I do agree we have an obligation to give aid to fellow travelers. There are relatively few reasons not to stop and help an injured party. And I would have a pretty hard time turning away a hungry family knocking on my door, although I don't intend to shelter anyone but my own. I think I'd give them some staples/1st aid stuff and send them on. My innate mistrust of strangers would ratchet up a few notches in a real survival situation, I'm sure.

Thanks for your input, guys.

I need to put this more succinctly, I would not help anyone but those I know or those in the direst of need that pose zero threat, ie children, the severely hurt or maybe an individual. It sounds hostile but the rest are fair game for whatever happens next.

As to turning in my weapons, yep they can have an old .38 kept for just the occasion.

 

[SkunkWerX]

In a total lawless situation, total anarchy, the Gray areas will disappear.
Things will become more black and white.

In most cases, stealing will become a capital crime. There would be no police, judges or lawyers. Steal my food? BANG.

I think our generosity toward others would be predicated toward our own well being, if I am dying of thirst, I'll probably do anytihng to get water, likelwise, if you try to take my last drop, BANG.

Unless you have been in total war, or some place devoid of laws and government, you will have trouble comrehending just what a shift will take place.

But, as Thomas Linton sez, it's Doomer-Porn, likelihood for other things are much, much greater. Local is more likely than Regional, Regional is more likely than National, National is more likely than Global.

 

[mewolf1]

There are man made laws and there are natural laws. When it comes to surviving there are no man made laws. I follow the rules posted above til such time they are void.
I am most greatful to the Vets of this world as I have some idea as to what
they have been through, only from what they have told me. I think I may have gone round the bend in sucha situation. Buddies of mine have said I would have been fine and I take that as a great compliment. There are survival situations most of us can't imagine.
Survival is instinctual, we do what we have to do to survive. To the Blazes with ethics if I might die. I'm also glad that the sheep that make up the bulk of the world accept the rules or this would be/or will be/ one wicked place to eek out a living.

 

[rebeltf]

Ethics.

Depends on the situation.
I will always lookout for my family before I look out for anyone else and then my real friends will come before a stranger.
There are tiers of how I look upon my fellow man , the above pretty much states in which order they are put.
Family first , strangers last and I am going to take care of myself before I help a stranger. What good can I do if I do not look out for me ?
Hope that does not sound selfish since , if you really knew me you'd know what I am trying to say here.

Todays' world is different. It is not the same people that were around 100 years ago for sure. Respect is gone in much of society , could you imagine what it would be like in the face of large scale disaster ?-
-People will die , not one of us here can do anything to stop that , it is called natural selection , you and I may very well be one of those "selected".
Babies and children will drop like flies ,as will the old and infirm, we really have no idea of what true suffering is. Take a look at Stalingrad for instance , when you are hungry enough to eat rotten flesh or sawdust , ethics arent going to matter much. When you have thousands and thousands of roting corpses , there is not much time for fancy graveside services , if you are lucky enough to capture an enemy , are you going to worry about silliness like Geneva Conventions or will you break his/her fingers until you get all the info you need and then smash thier head in to save a bullet ?

Ethics are a convenience and are situation dependant , IMO.

 

[GibsonFan]

Good points guys. Obviously, a thunderstorm or even hurricane situation is very different from total anarchy. Hell, even today I'd stop and help a broke-down motorist, but I'll be armed when I approach.

 

[skammer]

The ethos of survival is to survive.
Nothing else matters, in its simplicity is its greatest problem.

WEll said,

"In the end we are all animals and its the one with the most primal instincts and the will to act on them that will prevail most often. Of course there is no guarantee as we have all bought that numbered ticket in life and it will come up eventually. There is no right or wrong just "IS".

Ethics have nothing to do with it."

Skam

"May all your mags be empty"

 

[jude_061]

i'm more of a lurker in this forum, but this thread caught my eye. i think most civilized people would make allowances for transgressions against them if you were to say rob a trap line to survive. its not like stealing someone's lobsters because you had a taste for them. that's assuming the trapper wasn't in a similar situation. i think most survival-minded people are willing to overlook things that are normally considered unethical in non-survival situations. on that same note, things like stealing beyond your alloted ration are looked upon as capital offenses.

there's quite a bit on cannibalism and the stigma attached to it regarding those that were lost at sea. one case has a herring fisherman murdering his lifeboat mates and when he confessed to the murder on his deathbead, he was buried without a service at sea. on the other hand, the drawing of lots to see who would be killed was accepted practice, as was eating dead shipmates. in a non-survival situation, that is probably the most abhorrent thing, especially in devout populations such as the quakers (referencing the ESSEX whale ship), but in a survival situation, it was acceptable. in the essex lifeboats, stealing rations was a shooting offense, where in quaker society, there was no death penalty, especially for stealing a one ounce biscuit. the whole ethical continuum is upended.

even though that is an extreme example, i think it illustrates, albeit graphically, the "revised" ethical codes of a survival situation.

i think beyond not depriving your companions of their share of food or water, non-survival codes of ethics are out the window. they can be a detriment if someone is loathe to take something from a trap line because they're worried about stealing. i say eat it, then when you're no longer at risk, replace it or compensate the owner for it.

rule number 1 is to stay alive.

 

[EmsRescueGuy]

Since I do volunteer medical services to strangers as it is i believe in all but the most extreme cases i would comtinue to do so.

That being said, I live by the rule "A dead rescuer, Rescues No One" My saftey and that of my crew, family ,or loved ones comes before others. I will refuse to take my ambulace down a road where someone will shoot at it, or go into a building that is not secured, especially if it is a riot/looting situation where people may try to raid my vehicle thinking there are drugs on board.

I believe in being self reliant and encourage others to do the same, I have been working for the past five years to make my rescue squad more prepared for disater. and for the last fifteen on my own preparedness, my plans and gear, and outlook are constantly evolving but my ethics remain pretty constant.

I will survive and i will help any i can, anyone who is a threat to my survival will be dealt with in the most appropriate available means.