• Advertisement

The Ethics of Survival

Post general discussions here
Wayne
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Cow Bay, Nova Scotia
x 30
x 40
Canada

The Ethics of Survival

Postby Wayne » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:32 pm

Most of us in Society are raised to do the right thing by others. Following the law of the land is ingrained into our being. But where does doing the right thing equate to breaking the law? I'm sure each of us may have a slightly different answer to this question.

Personally, I've spent much of my working life as a police officer, so I sincerely appreciate the laws of the land from a particular perspective. However in a recent question surrounding bugging-out, I responded that if my 4wd truck was broken down and I needed to bug-out, that there would likely be many people in two or three car families that would leave in one car. There would likely be several vehicles available to acquire...

As a past military survival instructor, I've had to eat a number of things out of necessity not choice. Survival often depends upon thinking outside of the box. In a survival situation, if I needed a vehicle, I'd steal one. I consider myself an honest person. I'm not a thief, however I would steal.

Survival often requires that we act in a manner that is contrary to how we normally would. Preparation to Survive requires the personal acceptance of this. I wonder how many of us have mentally prepared ourselves for such an eventuality? What do you think?
0 x

HopeImReady
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:47 pm
x 80
x 30
Canada

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby HopeImReady » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:37 am

I have considered this...I think we each have our own idea of which laws we'd be willing to break or not - based on our own moral upbringing & what's important to us, in our own situation. I think that in a true SHTF situation, things that fall by the wayside are not laws, but norms or customs that are polite, but serve little purpose, like certain rules of the road, speed limits, etc. Cooperation may exist, based not on norms, but based on people recognizing that it benefits both, or on strong personal bonds. Assault & murder will still be considered prohibited by most (not by all). I don't really subscribe to the golden horde theory (at least not until a crisis has lasted for several weeks), but I think a small percentage would take advantage, just because they now have the chance and they are not constrained by society & police and/or may be off their meds/addicts going into withdrawal.

I consider myself a very moral and ethical person, and part of my motive for prepping is so I can be more self-sufficient, to avoid or delay being in a moral quandary of feeling like I had to violate my own ethics to survive. Practically, though, there are selfish and unprepared people everywhere, and I don't expect them to act ethically, necessarily - especially for any emergency that lasts more than a few weeks. In a longer crisis, my guess is that many of our more sophisticated/modern ethics will be less important, like our ideas about animal cruelty, veganism, discrimination/human rights and disability. For example, I am a vegetarian/pescetarian, and I prep based on that, but in a survival situation, if I didn't have access to my food stores or once they ran out, I would probably eat meat. I am normally a non-violent person, but I train with firearms and am learning krav maga, so I can defend myself "vigorously", if the need arose.
2 x
HopeImReady
"The thing about smart mother f*ckers, is that they sometimes sound like crazy mother f*ckers to dumb mother f*ckers." -Abraham .”

jonesy
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:42 pm
Location: Nanaimo
x 30

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby jonesy » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:09 am

I think, from an ethical perspective, if you could explain your actions to one of your LEO coworkers, and they would accept it, you're likely ok.

Ie. Taking an abandoned car to escape the forest fire in McMurray is a far cry from looting a store to get a big screen TV just because there is a riot happening. More than likely , such as the fort mcmurray example, you'd even leave a note. Or better yet, return it with an explanation, a full tank of gas, and a gift, barring an end of the world situation.

I think an old book described it best. "Taking something you need to survive is called liberating. Taking somthing because you just want it is theft. "

And I think you would agree if you pulled someone over in the above situation, you'd take a name and license number, and follow up to make sure the car got returned. You wouldn't make him walk out of the fire.
2 x
One is none, two is one.

Syn
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:07 am
x 5
x 7

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby Syn » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:35 am

I would think that I would gladly hand a stranger keys to a vehicle if they could drive it to safety and they needed it for their family, to be returned after the event and I would be understanding if someone knowing we had extra vehicles 'liberated' one or a container of gas we were not using and depending on , even if they grabbed my unlicensed trailer to haul their livestock out in an emergency like a fire . I am not against helping people but I am more a self responsible sort who lives and let lives for the most part , so I have zero plans to responsible for saving those unprepared . I don't even like having a special property tax brought in our local city ( which I do not have to pay) to deal with opiate abusers , I don't do drugs why does everyone else have to bear the cost of those idiots that do ?

Now the typical view people have that in some epic event they are going to 'bug out' well lets put it from the perspective of someone who lives in the rural forested areas , we don't like the weekend traffic speeding, shooting without due regard and the utter filthy mess that our recreational visitors leave, the vehicles tearing up the mudflats by the lake and abandoned and burned trash and vehicles etc., the careless forest fires when we are very careful because we know the danger to our surroundings . After a while I see the citizens of this valley as the keepers of it and I honestly think I might be surly if expected to deal with an influx of idiots thinking this was going to be their survival lifeline , their 'bugout destination' because they have been here using it recreationally . They seem to think they are entitled to put lives in danger speeding past our horses even with posted signs of horse crossings and trails . So while others might think its their bugout destination , I don't think there is any entitlement . That watershed land I paid dearly for and provides the springs for the trout in the brook, well I don't have the same view that others coming from the city do that they can hunt and fish when we spend years fostering and nurturing the habitat . I think if people want to establish areas as their bugout they should be buying that land and working on making it sustainable just as I have invested everything , money... energy... sweat... but hmm, I don't have any sympathy for those thinking with some entitled attitude that they can bug out to where people have been building sustainable lives and take from it.

I put up a lot of fencing at great expense safeguarding my stock, my orchard, my garden and I chase off Mamma bear from my chicken coop and I leave half my property in wilderness corridors and come spring I find a hunter has killed off Mamma bear , one cub is dead from starvation and we have a yearling cub left . You can bet the hunter was not from this valley , so in a survival situation do you think I want to share the resources with those bugging out ? That stag fattened off my land that I have habitually lost garden and fruit too , am I willing to see someone bugging out shoot it ? So those who hunt , if you don't OWN and put into that land , don't expect to be welcome to some one elses territory and the game that thrive there.

I realize we are talking two different view points of 'bugging out' but maybe if others could THINK from our perspective it could prevent conflict in a chaotic period ? I never gave up vacations, lived snowed in without power etc. to 'host' strangers just showing up , worked for years and invested everything to host these people with some idea of bugging out to the forest .
3 x

Wayne
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:24 pm
Location: Cow Bay, Nova Scotia
x 30
x 40
Canada

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby Wayne » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:55 am

Syn wrote:...but maybe if others could THINK from our perspective it could prevent conflict in a chaotic period ? I never gave up vacations, lived snowed in without power etc. to 'host' strangers just showing up , worked for years and invested everything to host these people with some idea of bugging out to the forest .


Well stated Syn. I suppose your comments reflect much of what I was attempting to say.

If the SHTF, what is 'normal' can immediately change. I suppose this is dependent on the situation. I saw this when teaching survival skills. In the short-term people's attitude doesn't change. They are the same person with the same values that they had before the survival situation. They consider eating only what they would have eaten yesterday. After a period of time their outlook changes. Many will start off as cooperative, but often changes as suffering increases.

In the scenario you've described, I suspect that people will start out by asking and when this ceases to work, they will help themselves. No one will hesitate to take the deer nourished by your crops. They only know they (and their family) are hungry and the deer is nourishment. Conflict will no doubt occur. The question is what we are prepared to do about it? Can we be comfortable in chasing starving people out of our forest, who only seek food?
0 x

Limitkiller
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:12 am
Canada

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby Limitkiller » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:55 am

Are people really bugging out if they're just going to squat on someone's property? No, they're just squatters. But, somewhere along the line, in a true long term, grid down situation, land/material wealth/livestock/etc ownership will revert to whatever you can physically keep someone else from taking from you. There will come a time when if you have something that you want but I want it more I won't consider it stealing, I just wanted to have it more than you wanted to keep it.
0 x

jonesy
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:42 pm
Location: Nanaimo
x 30

Re: The Ethics of Survival

Postby jonesy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:50 pm

Fair enough,

But You might be surprised just how much people will prevent you trying to take what they built, earned or bought. Being a marauder (not sugar coating it, that's what you'd be) is not a long term prospect. It might work for a while, but you're rolling the dice every time you decide you want something more than the original owner.

If times have changed to the point you have to forcibly defend what you have, I'd say the times the owner gets sued by the burglar would be over too. Hence the owners will be a little more 'aggressively defensive' than society allows them to currently be.
0 x
One is none, two is one.


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests