So your stranded on an island....

[RSalazar]

Lets say you are a fisherman by trade and you crash onto an island with 23 others.
You soon manage to rig up crude methods to catch fish, enough for everyone to survive on.
The others praise you in thanks

Days go by and you solely provide food for the island while the others work to gather water and firewood to survive on.

Soon their natural urge to be somewhat independent kicks in and they demand that you teach them how to fish.

Would you teach them how to fish, knowing that you are in a stable condition as is?



I guess one thing to assume is that if everyone fends for themselves..then there will be less total output.
But then the issue of acting morally also comes into play if you solely make the most important decision on the island.

any opinions?

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

No. Not at all. This is a basic eco 101 problem of comparative advantages. If Jill has a comparative advantage compared to Jane in terms of picking apples and Jane has a comparative advantage in picking pears, then Jill should pick apples always and Jane should always pick pears, and then they should trade, and thereby increase their total consumption beyond what they would otherwise be able to.

 

[Roger Trimble]

I think I would teach them how to fish ( perhaps for some sort of trade in return ). If the others want to fish bad enough, they'll figure out a way to do it and keep you out of the loop. If you opt to teach them, you are still in the loop, and you may get something in return.

 

[Adam]

No. Not at all. This is a basic eco 101 problem of comparative advantages.

Sounds pretty good, until Steve the Fire Guy gets eaten by a wild boar. Just like you, Steve absolutely refused to teach anyone else how to make fire, because he had a "comparative advantage", and it was just more efficient to let him do it for everyone. But now Steve is gone, leaving everyone else to die of exposure, surrounded by a useless bounty of fish.

 

[Eugene Krel]

Obviously they would make clothing out of fish scales

 

[GoIllini]

Most people in the real world specialize in two or three things, sometimes with one more than the other. My specialties are "programmer" first and "financial products analyst" second.

On the island, you can agree to teach Frank the Fire guy to fish if he agrees to teach you how to build a fire. And Brenda the Berry collector can exchange skills with Ted the Tent Maker. Obviously Frank won't have time to get as good at fishing as you and you won't have time to get as good at fire building as Frank, but if the island wants to have a sushi festival one warm summer evening that involves the mass consumption of uncooked fish, Frank can spend more time catching fish and less time building a fire. And if Frank the firebuilder dies, you can always train another fish catcher/fire builder and take up firebuilding as your main specialty.

The system works well if you can ensure that Frank won't go out and teach Tom how to fish on a level that might compete with your services.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

Sounds pretty good, until Steve the Fire Guy gets eaten by a wild boar. Just like you, Steve absolutely refused to teach anyone else how to make fire, because he had a "comparative advantage", and it was just more efficient to let him do it for everyone. But now Steve is gone, leaving everyone else to die of exposure, surrounded by a useless bounty of fish.

There were no wild boars or other random dangers specified in the problem. But if you specify outside dangers such as that, then the problem changes.

 

[RSalazar]

Sounds pretty good, until Steve the Fire Guy gets eaten by a wild boar. Just like you, Steve absolutely refused to teach anyone else how to make fire, because he had a "comparative advantage", and it was just more efficient to let him do it for everyone. But now Steve is gone, leaving everyone else to die of exposure, surrounded by a useless bounty of fish.

I do agree that the main arguing point of teaching them is the case where the fisherman becomes deathly ill or dies in a freak accident.

We can make a safe assumption that if you teach one or two people that in good time some are catching themselves an early lunch...and fetching themselves some water to go with it, oh and preparing themselves a fire to cook it...effectively removing this worker from the 'cycle' of services that he can contribute to since he can fend for himself.

On the other hand, if you keep this secret to yourself you can effectively cause other people to organize around you.

From an economic standpoint, its best to keep the secret to yourself.
From a Utilitarianism point of view..it might be best to do what increases the overall 'happiness' , but then again you can't just give everyone what they want.

Is it moral to follow the economic route?

 

[joel_b]

Are there any hot women on the island? That makes all the difference.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Interesting discussion, sounds just an episode of Lost.
The OP needs to define a few things such as "crash" and "time". "Crash" as in airplane crash or shipwreck. "Time" as in prehistoric, stoned age or 2009. Obviously, the merely act of crashing something on an island isn't what would happened on the stoned age and Frank the Fire guy maybe one who owns the only lighter.

With 24 people, I think it's time to build a boat and get the hell out of that island instead of worrying about being eaten by boar. If Tom Hanks can build the fire, catch the fish, build the boat, there isn't an excuse for not doing it.

 

[RSalazar]

Actually I do intend the setting to be somewhat Lost-like, rescue highly unlikely and escape impossible.

What is the moral thing to do in this case?

1)Not Teaching how to fish, since it is the best thing for the group, utility-wise.

2)Teach them how to fish, making several peoples lives more 'entertaining', bearable, or for whatever reason they desire to fish (not to survive since you yourself can easily supply all the fish), also with the outcome of running the risk of lower quality of life in the long term (because of basic economic reason).
-

In my opinion, #1 is the only choice here..there is no reason to have people wasting time producing fish when it has no value...(you easily supply more than enough fish daily for everyone because you are skilled)

 

[joel_b]

Even if you refused, I don't think it would take much time for people to learn how to fish, it's not THAT specialized of a skill.

It's also not clear what the opportunity cost is of the other people on the island, and at what utilization level they are at, or what the marketplace is like for goods and services.

You could have 23 other people with 50% of their day open, they will eventually learn more skills I would think. It worked on Swiss Family Robinson!

Also, define what 'stable condition' means? If you teach people to fish, how do you become 'unstable', and how? If you had to catch less fish, can you get wood and shelter and fire on your own? Because you are fishing for all people you also have opportunity costs, time you are not spending taking care of your other needs.

 

[Adam]

What is the moral thing to do in this case?

1)Not Teaching how to fish, since it is the best thing for the group, utility-wise.

2)Teach them how to fish, making several peoples lives more 'entertaining', bearable, or for whatever reason they desire to fish (not to survive since you yourself can easily supply all the fish), also with the outcome of running the risk of lower quality of life in the long term (because of basic economic reason).

Forcing others to depend upon you for their very survival, setting up a situation where the feeding of an entire community depends upon a single person and therefore has only one point of failure between itself and disaster, belittling others' desire for an increased quality of life by putting scare quotes around "entertaining"...
What you are describing may be "efficient" in an economic sense, but "moral"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[RSalazar]

Forcing others to depend upon you for their very survival, setting up a situation where the feeding of an entire community depends upon a single person and therefore has only one point of failure between itself and disaster, belittling others' desire for an increased quality of life by putting scare quotes around "entertaining"...
What you are describing may be "efficient" in an economic sense, but "moral"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

:o good answer