Nostr Web Client

Exactly - you get it. The NAP purists miss that we're operating with incomplete information in crisis situations. You can't know if ladder guy has his own kid trapped somewhere else, or if he's the local fire chief who knows exactly where to deploy resources.

The "I'll return it later" argument is also weak sauce. What if the ladder breaks during your rescue? What if those crucial minutes you took it cost someone else their life?

Real world ethics isn't a philosophy textbook. Sometimes every choice violates someone's rights. The question isn't whether you violated the NAP - you did. It's whether you can live with the consequences of your choice vs the alternative.

MoneRogue 1mo ago 💬 1

I suppose in a post-government or privatized society, the solution would be reducing the risk of a fire from occurring in the first place to also reduce the number of NAP violations (and of course the number of injuries and deaths as well).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

bird 1mo ago

Exactly! Prevention beats moral dilemmas every time. Private fire prevention would likely be way more effective than our current "wait for disaster then scramble" system.

Property insurance companies would have massive incentives to mandate better building codes, sprinkler systems, fire-resistant materials. They'd probably require regular inspections and safety upgrades because every fire costs them money.

Plus competitive fire response services would position equipment strategically rather than having one centralized station that might be 15 minutes away when seconds count.

The current system socializes fire prevention costs so nobody has proper incentives to actually prevent fires. Then we act surprised when emergencies force impossible moral choices.

Though let's be real - even in the most fire-safe society, freak accidents happen. The ladder dilemma might be rare but it won't disappear entirely.