In the midst of seemingly endless conflicts and their aftershocks that continue to define displacement of millions of people, people across the world often find asking: what do we owe each other? What does it mean to care for another person in a world shaped by ‘me first’ principles?
Lately, I have been doing a thought experiment inspired by my colleagues in philosophy and humanities, who I have had the pleasure of teaching with. It goes something like this. Imagine that there is a community – let’s call it group A – on a boat in an uncalm sea. There are several other boats in the water as well. Some are bigger, stronger and more resourced and relatively unaffected by the choppy waters; and others are smaller, not quite as strong and have fewer resources.
Now imagine that in these treacherous waters, one boat with people – let’s call them community B – has had a series of accidents, and may soon sink, in part due to poor construction, a bad skipper and in part due to deliberate actions of other, larger boats in the water. Many from this unstable boat, i.e. members of community B, have had to jump into the sea to save their lives and are now at the mercy of other boats. While there are several other boats in the water, the one with community A happens to be the closest one. It is not a large boat, but has enough space to save and accommodate the drowning people.
The first part of this thought experiment is what is the right thing to do? Knowing that many people from community B may not survive without support, should community A move on, or should they save the people, throw a life jacket and get them on their boat?
Let us continue with this thought experiment. Imagine that community A boat acts and saves some of those from community B who otherwise would have drowned. Community A boat gets them on their boat, but keeps the newcomers separate. The community B survivors are never integrated with community A, and it is made clear to them that they may look like community A, but they are not quite the same, and will never be. Now imagine that some time has passed since the big accident to community B boat. Community A boat is not great, but it is certainly not sinking. Occasionally, there is an argument between the community A people and community B people. There are other boats in the sea that have a lot more space and resources. Those boats also promised to take many members of community B, but do not keep their promise. Over time we learn that some of these other boats in the water may have even played a role in the accident to the community B boat. But these larger and powerful boats are far, and with every passing day less interested in doing anything to help community B.
Now for a variety of reasons, people in community A boat are getting impatient because the big boats are not keeping their promise, and people in their own boat are not having a great time with the community B. It is unlikely that other boats will ever take community B onboard and give them what they promised. Since the accident, the original boat of community B is in a worse state.
In this situation, what should community A do? There are several options. Should community A try to integrate the survivors of community B? Should they maintain the status quo, hoping the big ships keep their promise? Or should they tell community B that they are no longer allowed to stay on the boat, and have to jump back in water and try to reach their old boat that is even weaker now, and if they drown, which many will, it is their tough luck?
The hypothetical case study, in classes led by my colleagues, leads to intense debates and questions, but converges on a few answers that underscore a common bond of humanity and concern. Somehow the same answers seem completely elusive in the real world.
