... asks Barry at the Inn of the Last Home. More specifically, he gives us a scenario: "If a friend is walking towards a cliff, do we or do we not have a responsibility to stop them?" I think there's some relevant information missing, so let me fill in the blanks in various ways and then give my answer.
First, whether or not I have a responsibility to stop my friend from walking off a cliff, I would stop him. Even if I were convinced that doing so violated his rights and individual sovereignty, I would stop him -- out of selfishness, if for no other reason. My life would be less enjoyable without my friend around, so I'd want to prevent that. Plus, I might feel guilty if I let him die, and people would probably look down on me for it.
That said, does such a responsibility exist? If so, are we only responsible to protect our friends from themselves, or do we have a responsibility to protect strangers as well?
I don't know if the "friend" relationship is the best angle from which to attack this problem; "friendship" is not very specific, and people all have different definitions of the term. For example, there are certain relationships with built-in responsibility, like parents and teachers. A parent obviously has a responsibility to prevent his child from harming himself.
But the "friend" relationship is generally understood to be a relationship between equals, with neither holding formal dominance over the other, so that's the assumption I'll make. Generally, it must be bilateral -- that is, I cannot be your friend if you are not my friend. I may like you, or even love you, but we're not friends unless we both agree on it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a relationship between equals. (1)
In that light, let's reconsider the situation above. I see my friend acting in a dangerous way that's likely to result in harm to himself; this is Uncertain Situation 1, but let's assume I have a responsibility to stop him. Under this responsibility then, and without any selfishness on my part, I then begin to restrain his actions to protect him. If he doesn't object, then the problem is solved. If he does object, then I am in Uncertain Situation 2. If I persist through US2, my friend may eventually object so strongly that he breaks off our friendship, thus freeing me of any possible responsibility as his "friend".
The difference between US1 and US2 is that in the first case my actions against my friend are really more "advice" than "restraint". My actions may make it more difficult for my friend to carry out his harmful behavior, but he's still free to accept or reject my position. In US2, the question is whether or not I have a responsibility to actually prevent in fact the harmful actions of my friend, despite his objections. Even in US2, however, he is free to ultimately reject my position by renouncing our friendship. This difference is thus a matter of magnitude, rather than a matter of kind; both situations reduce to the same question: should I give potentially unwelcome advice to my friend when he is acting dangerously?
The question of advice seems much less controversial than the question of actual restraint, and by making this reduction I believe the matter is greatly simplified. Additionally, this reduction feels correct intuitively. Some may object to (1) above, and argue that friendship can be unilateral, but I think that would go against the common perception. This argument is also based on the assumption that my friend is acting rationally, and that's another issue entirely. Is it ever rational to hurt yourself? Clearly yes, e.g., if you're protecting someone else.
Therefore, my conclusion is that the question of real restraint doesn't come up in friendships, since the relationship can be dissolved at will by the person being restrained. What about "our fellow man" more generally? Well, protecting people from themselves has generally led to tyranny.
Update:
Jim's comments remind me of a verse.
Proverbs 27:6
Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses.
It is easy to understand the need to be our "brother's keeper." It is very complex to know when and how to apply that to real life situations.
Well-intentioned parents who have attempted to save their grown children from cults have ended up facing criminal charges or lawsuits.
Wow Michael...you really have a gift for introducing 'thinking-man's' questions. I can't say that there is any easy pat answer for this topic.
In my own personnel experience, I did attempt to 'save' a friend from what I percieved to be self-harm. I don't believe his reaction should be called typical. I don't think there is a typical reaction to someone trying to dissuade you from doing something. In this scenario, my friend ultimately terminated our friendship.
What I gather from this is: If someone is really bent on doing something(good or bad), any percieved interference will probably only strengthen their resolve, ie...locks on a door only keep out honest people.
On the flipside of the coin, however, I believe that the possibility of losing a friendship should I decide to intervene does not relieve me of the responsibility from taking right actions.
And who can determine if I am responsible? Most often...me. The Bible says (loosely paraphrased) that to know to do good, and not to do it; To him, that is sin.
Of course, that could quickly become a slippery slope, because my definition for 'doing good' is totally different from someone else, as there have even been those who believe doing good is to kill an abortion doctor, or deny their child medical attention on the basis of religious views, etc...
A similar circumstance can be found when we attempt to dissuade someone from doing something WE have previously done, and found to be self-damaging. If we parented like this, then we would never discipline our children, because 'we have done that before, so who are we to tell them they can't do it'
Here, however, is what I lean on most: if you have a friend in such a situation, and you love them, you need not look any further than the meaning of love. Love is action...not a feeling. And love does not give expecting anything. Love strives to do right in a particular situation, even if the outcome may not be well recieved. There's an old song that says something like, 'I'd rather hurt you honestly, than to please you with a lie'. So I guess all of this is about personal integrity, too.
God commanded us to love each other; to love our neighbor as ourself. I guess maybe this world could do better at determining who 'thy neighbor' is. Maybe the world would be a more peaceful place.
Great topic, man. I love a good mental workout.
Jim: Thanks for the comment, you reminded me of a verse I'm going to put in an update.
I stumbled upon your site by accident I hope you don't mind my comments. I like the essay and it certainly had me thinking. I personally believe that we don't have any obligations other than those enforced upon us by our peers (e.g.) laws, cultural expectations and those from our own personal belief systems (e.g.) religion or philosophy. To act in situations because we feel obligated is due to an obligation created by ourselves to spare ourselves or others from loss, guilt, punishment or by gaining something. Responsibility is something intangible that we take upon ourselves. It is generally unnatural for someone to harm themselves therefore a friend trying to endanger themselves is likely to be an irrational act. By trying to stop them it is possible to lose a frienship but likely to earn the respect of others (e.g. their relatives). Not to try is to guarantee failure.