Human beings are human beings no matter where you are

This is just an offshoot of the brilliant piece entitled "13 Theses". Each statement created a plethora of responses - some in accord with the thesis, others against it, and some using it merely as a launching point. I'm sure that in one way or another we have all written a madatory essay on a theme presented there.

Although I'm sure that I could elaborate on all of them, and I'm sure that there are blogs dedicated solely to one of these 13 topics, I have chosen to talk about one, simply because it came up somewhat unexpectedly in a conversation last night. The thesis I am talking about is #9 - The other is just another. Before I get into the conversation I had that sparked my mind with respect to this comment I must first look at the phrase itself. "The other is just another." The problem with this phrase is it is neither true or false. If the other is just another, then there really is no other, just one of us, but another would imply there being something else, i.e. the other. But we just agreed that there is no other. To put it differently, "A is equal to not A". Not really important for the discussion at hand, just something to get your mind around.

Despite that preamble, I do agree with the statement, and the brief explanation that followed. I think a better representation of that thesis could be found in the explanation where it was said, "Human beings are human beings no matter where you are." I would like to try to bring this issue into the light with a scenario one of my best friends confronted myself and another one of my best friends with:

My sister and I have an incredibly rich uncle. The exact amount is insignificant, but to give it some maginitude, lets say $15 billion, whose estate will be left solely to my sister and myself as soon as he dies. One day I walk into my uncle's house, go to the washroom, see my uncle taking a bath, and hit him over the head, leaving him unconscious, and drowning. I leave immediately, knowing full well what I have done. My sister arrives at the house, and sees our uncle lying in a bathtub of blood and water, and has the opportunity to save his life, simply by pulling his head out of the water. Question #1: If she doesn't save our uncle, who is more at fault - my sister or me?

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that I am at fault the worst. My sister is looking at the dying body of my uncle, knowing that a minimal action by her can save his life. Question #2: Is my sister still a murderer for not saving our unlce?

To keep the discussion going (and I'm sure many would agree), let's say that, yes, she is a murderer. Then (here's the kicker), Question #3: My sister is watching television, and up pops an advertisement for World Vision, saying that all she has to do is give $1 a day to save the dying child on the screen. Is she a murderer for not helping this child?

And we come back to the original thesis of The other is just another, or Human beings are human beings no matter where you are. Let's change the scenario a little. In front of me there is a starving child, who will die in the next 10 seconds. All I have to do to save him/her is snap my fingers. Also in front of me is a tv screen with a child in let's say Africa, similar in stature, starving, who will also die in 10 seconds, but I have the ability to save him/her by snapping my fingers. Both of these children will die, and I can only choose one to live. The strange thing about human nature is that (obviously) we want to save both, but we can only save one and 99% of the time we will choose the one in front of us. Why does proximity have a weight on our compassion?

More questions to ponder: What if I killed my uncle to use the share of my inheritance ($7.5 billion) to help homeless people, or reduce poverty, or aid research for AIDS or cancer? Is that unethical? $7.5 billion can go a long way, and my uncle was doing nothing of the sort to help the unfortunate to the extent that I would have done. Was I wrong to kill him?

Let's say there are 6 dying people in front of me. All of the same age, have all accomplished the same things in their lives. In other words they are equal to the defintion. Now let's say that I only have the power to save 5 of the 6 people. Does that make me a murderer because I cant save the 6th person?

Now let's say that there are 5 dying children, who I can save, and in my saving them I am giving them a minimally satisfying life. By that I mean, there is nothing extravagant whatsoever. Most will not be able to achieve much with their lives at all. But let's say that the less I give to one, the more I can give to the another, to the point where I can give 1 child all the opportunity in the world, but the other 4 must die. Is that unethical? If that seems incredibly wrong off the bat, well, how ethical am I being if all I am giving these kids is the bare bones?

Granted, a lot of these scenarios are unrealistic, yet they still raise interesting moral questions. Where are my responsibilities? To whom do I more? Less? These are just some things to get your head around. We all have the ability to do a lot, yet we choose not to. Are we all murderers because we aren't helping the impoverished with every breath we take? The reason why all of these questions are so hard to answer is because human beings are human beings no matter where you are. That premise is what makes life so hard. But you know what I'd rather take the hard life and attempt to answer the tough questions than the alternative: imagine the premise is false and we are not all the same. How easy would those questions be to answer? How disgusting would that be?