For some time now, I’ve noticed that the reader ethics questions posed to Kwame Anthony Appiah, the New York Times Magazine’s proprietor of “The Ethicist” advice column, have become more obvious, often embarrassingly so. Appiah, a real ethicist (he teaches philosophy at NYU) is easily the best of the advice columnists who have held his job, though, naturally, I would be better still. But the point of the column, presumably, is to educate readers about ethical decision-making and standards for ethical analysis. A question that provokes the reaction, “What? Are you kidding? DUH!” does not accomplish that objective.
Now, it’s possible that Appiah is a competent ethicist but a lousy question selector. It’s also possible, since the descent of The Great Stupid over the land and related recent cultural disasters, like eight years of terrible role models in the White House, the politicization of public education and universities, and the continuing deterioration of popular culture, which, believe it or not, used to specialize in ethics lessons for the masses, ethical literacy is in a death spiral.
This issue now has me remembering that I haven’t yet answered a plaintive, off-site email from a reader who asked if I felt that ethics in the U.S. was dead or rapidly getting there. If you’re reading now, I’m sorry! I’m not ignoring you. It’s a good question, and I’m still thinking. Also I am not handling the sudden death of my wife as well as wish I could, and feel like I am on a hopeless treadmill to nowhere, all day, every day.
Oh! Right, the Ethicist. The question that prompted my current musings was this:
A friend and I take a daily early-morning swim, usually all by ourselves, in a pool that has no lifeguard. A woman arrived the other day and announced that she loves to swim but only does so when another person can be present, because she recently had an EEG that revealed some abnormalities.
We, two ladies “of a certain age,” are very uncomfortable with this situation and worried because we don’t think we could handle an emergency in the pool. Our question is: What are our responsibilities to her in case of a crisis? Do we suggest that she not swim with us because we would be incapable of helping if something happened to her? Is there a better way to respond?
At least the usually prolix professor answered the question with record brevity, saying, little more than “Don’t tell her she can’t swim with you.” And I guess I’ll give him a pass for not adding, “you idiot.”
To begin with, swimming without anyone else around is always risky, even if you’re an Olympic hopeful. The woman didn’t say she expected the other ladies “of a certain age ” (boy I hate that cliché…) to give her CPR, just that they would be around, if the unthinkable occurred, to do what any decent human being can and should do if they see someone in distress: seek help.
Are these ladies of a certain age but fit as metaphorical fiddles? Have they been assured that they have low cholesterol and the blood pressure and heartbeats of marathoners? Have none of them smoked? Are their lives stress free? Have those ladies compared their family medical histories?
In addition to being a dumb question, the inquiry also suggests an innately unethical perspective. Ethics is, in part, about caring about others and contributing to a societal culture in which everyone strives to make living better, happier, safer and more productive for one’s entire community, and, eventually, nation. A mentality characterized by, “No, sorry, we don’t want to associate with you because we might have to interact with you or interrupt our own agendas to help you” wallows in an ethics-free abyss.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m flabbergasted. Wouldn’t the appropriate response be, “Sweetheart, we’re not lifeguards and we’re not young. If something goes wrong with you, we’ll try to do all we can to help you, but please be advised we’re simply not sure we’d be able to fish you out from the bottom of the pool if you had a heart attack and went down like a rock.”
Isn’t even that excessive? She just said she wanted to have someone around while she was swimming, and maybe over-shared a bit. She wasn’t making them responsible for her.
Heck, every time someone is in my house, I could say, “You know, if you keel over I’m not going to be of much help. At least I can call 911…”
Swimming pools are dangerous, living rooms less so. Having grown up in south Florida and having lived in swimming-pool-death intensive Arizona for forty years now, I guess I have a different take on this. Kids drowned all the time in Miami. In canals and rock pits. Ralph Cancilla didn’t know how to swim even though he went into the lake/former rock pit with all the rest of us boy scouts. He panicked when he realized he was out of his depth and proceeded to climb up me as if I was a ladder. He could have drowned. I could have done so as well had I not been a very competent swimmer. A kid drowned in an under-construction golf course water hazard next to a pony league game being played at Grapeland Heights Park. The fire department came with trucks, but they were too late. The Pony league game continued throughout without interruption.
Ethics should also posit that imposing on other’s to satisfy one’s own agenda is just as unethical as not caring about others. What were the assumed responsibilities the woman with the heart condition imposing on the others?
I scuba dive and buddy teams are a requirement. I myself have been trained to dive solo but I rarely do that except in the most benign environments (pools-open water less than 40 feet) Solo training focuses on self-rescue and requires that you have redundant life support systems when diving. With that said, I have purposely NOT been trained as a dive master to assist in the training of other divers. Why? Because diving is inherently risky , unskilled divers can kill me if they panic, and I do not want to be involved in a dive accident in which I will be second guessing my actions for as long as I live. I have two friends who died while diving and I am damn glad I was not on those boats when they happened. Panic is the number one causal event in water related accidents. A woman experiencing chest pains while swimming is likely to panic and rescue attempts by the untrained will likely result in two deaths
To me the best answer we would be happy to have you swim with us but please be aware that the only thing we feel confident to do in the event of an emergency is to give you a floatation device if available and contact emergency personnel. We are unable to do any more because we are physically unable and not trained in first aid or water emergencies.
Consider the effects of simply saying sure we will keep an eye on you and then the women has a cardiac event while swimming and drowns because you were physically unable to pull her off the bottom. Who would want that on their conscience? Not me. There is a reason that lifeguard training is required to serve in that capacity.
Asking someone to serve as an emergency backup seems presumptuous to me. Would the answer be the same if a mom with a three year old asked strangers to watch her kid at the pool while she took a nap because she worked the night shift and was tired.
At some point in time, some requests go beyond being helpful for the purpose of promoting social cohesion.
“Would the answer be the same if a mom with a three year old asked strangers to watch her kid at the pool while she took a nap because she worked the night shift and was tired.”
I’ve told people that agreeing to watch a stranger’s child is just asking for trouble. Helping someone else’s child when the parent isn’t in evidence is something else–it take a village, after all.
Oh Hillary! Go fuck yourself. We’re not in Africa. It takes two parents and as many grandparents as are willing and able. Who the hell raised Chelsea? The local shaman? Asshole!
Helping a child whenever a parent is not around should be expected. If I saw anyone in distress in a pool I would feel confident because of my training ( not lifeguard) to render assistance. In such cases Good Samaritan laws may offer some protection but that does not mean I would not be sued.
My example tried to create a situation in which person a requests person b to do something that is fraught with risk. To agree to a parent’s request to watch their kid establishes a relationship that could create financial liability should the child be injured while in the strangers custody. No one carries waiver forms around.
The “it takes a village” has taken on a very different meaning from what it was when I grew up. Today it means the majority decide how people should think and use the government as its enforcement arm. When I grew up it meant the nosy neighbor lady would call your parents if she believed you were up to no good. Neither is an effective strategy because some see it as an avenue to power.
I disagree in general. The duty to try to assist someone in distress is, to me, just part of the social contract. However, I do see your point in one respect:
Suppose the women had been about to exit the pool and leave when the stranger arrived. Maybe they had an appointment, maybe they didn’t. Having been told that the stranger only swims when people are present because of the risk, would they then feel compelled to stay longer? How much longer? A few minutes? An hour? There is an imposition there.
At what point does the welfare of another person who is otherwise not one’s responsibility and is in no visible distress trump the convenience of others?
They could politely say they were unfortunately about to leave. There is no duty to stay longer than one planned.
At most the stranger noting she only swam when others were present is a polite request that the others present let her know when they’d left the pool. This she wouldn’t take a break a break from swimming and realize the pool were empty.
I concur with your recommended answer, Chris.
Doing favors for strangers falls under the ethical principle of compassion. Compassion cannot be forced, but we can encourage it by clarifying shared expectations so nobody’s worried about misunderstandings or conundrums about how they are expected to respond to unexpected events.
Thanks EC
I’m assuming from the information stated that the pool is open to anyone who would want to swim without a lifeguard present. While that may relieve the “ladies of a certain age” of legal obligation, it does not relieve them of a moral obligation.
If someone slipped and fell getting in the pool or bumped their head do we just say, “So sorry,” or pretend we didn’t see that? Regardless there is a moral obligation to help a fellow human in distress.
Yes, I understand this is New York which has a long history of ignoring humans in distress.
What I am trying to express is an ethics incumbent on us not as consumers but as neighbors. What goes with that is a sense of the beauty of the ethical, a sense that acting rightly and well can be attractive and even in a way, graceful. It is when one understands ethical behavior as an everyday affair that one begins to see the difficulty and fragility but also the supreme draw of the life well-lived. It has what the Greeks called kairos, the right moment, the perfect time—and not just the when, but what is done, and why, and where and how it is performed. It is just the right thing to do.
If this is a public pool there shoulld be sign that indicates, either, without a lifeguard present you swim at your own risk or without a lifeguard present use of the pool is forbidden.
Anyone, any where, at any time can have “an life threatening event. What were the plans of the two woman if one of them went down?
Perhaps the adage to be followed is “when you see something do something, that is in your capabilities.
In every CPR course I have taught, and these are many, After assessing the need for intervention, the next step is to call for help.
If someone is in water well over their head and struggling, a call to 911 is not going to cut the mustard.