Rights and Responsibilities Between Buddy Divers

[modustollens]

I was wondering what 'belongs in the Pub' was supposed to mean... Does being vague imply being irrational. Just what did you mean by 'belongs in the Pub'?


"[...]
And it is quite poplar to claim that an 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is' vis a vis a statement of fact.
Do some people bypass the buddy conundrum by solo diving right from the beech? If your girlfriend did that would you call her a birch? Perhaps it's something that you oak not to do, but it's either that or not dive, which is like getting left in a larch.

might be time to go to sleep..."

Good eye - but I just woke up; it is morning in this part of the world - I think I need more coffee...

MT

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I mean this is a circle-jerk best left in a non-diving sub-forum. The only relevant (to SCUBA) information in here is that pre-dive planning involves a discussion of what various members of the group(s) will/will not/may/may not do for one another. Everything else is "it depends."

 

[modustollens]

I mean this is a circle-jerk best left in a non-diving sub-forum. The only relevant (to SCUBA) information in here is that pre-dive planning involves a discussion of what various members of the group(s) will/will not/may/may not do for one another. Everything else is "it depends."

Surely there is value asking: depends on what?

MT

---------- Post added June 26th, 2014 at 03:11 AM ----------

gut feelings of a group of people whose opinions are not relevant to many and are no more or less valid than any others.

None of which really has much to do with Advanced SCUBA Discussions.

Are you claiming that ought statements or moral claims are merely an expression of feelings?

You don't seem to have any argument for claiming that duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with Advanced diving. If not advanced, then where, if at all?

Not quite sure what you mean by valid though; it would be a sloppy logic that allows something to be more or less valid to different people. I suppose you can claim 1+1=2 is valid for some but not for others, but making change would be very difficult.

I am confused. Is this valid in your mind?:

If my buddy goes too deep then I will not help him. I did not help him; so, he went too deep.

"Take nothing but pictures..." seems a pretty common principle, albeit not applied universally:

Code of Ethics | Save Ontario Shipwrecks
Cave Conservation | National Speleological Society Cave Diving Section



MT

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Surely there is value asking: depends on what?

Depends on individual preference/feeling before the dive, and on innumerable variables during it, rather than "rights" or "responsibilities" that can be neatly identified and discussed as some kind of universal standard. If it was someone I liked, I'd think nothing of hitting a PPO2 of 3.0-4.0 for a brief period of time on a lazy OC rec dive to make an attempt at saving them. If it wasn't, I might not drop below 1.4. Someone else would be perfectly justified in saying they'd never exceed their 1.6 contingency limit and associated depth. The endless 'if this, then that' is never going to be governed by specific rights or responsibilities, it just needs to be discussed to mutual satisfaction before the dive. After that, the chips will fall where they may.


MT

---------- Post added June 26th, 2014 at 03:11 AM ----------

Are you claiming that ought statements or moral claims are merely an expression of feelings?

You don't seem to have any argument for claiming that duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with Advanced diving. If not advanced, then where, if at all?

I am indeed claiming it. If you'd like to logically derive an ought from a series of is statements, I'm sure I and Hume's ghost are both eager to hear it. Rights and responsibilities don't have any relevance, as discussed here, to diving period…neither rights nor responsibilities are really applicable because they're absolute concepts and a dive is an endless series of changing circumstances. It is silly to speak of what rights your buddy has, or what absolute responsibilities you have, beyond saying this: plan your dive with your buddy, including emergency response/buddy rescue/and depth limits; then dive your plan, unless you feel the plan is no longer safe.

Everything else is just philosophy that fits perfectly well in The Pub and poorly in this forum.

Not quite sure what you mean by valid though; it would be a sloppy logic that allows something to be more or less valid to different people. I suppose you can claim 1+1=2 is valid for some but not for others, but making change would be very difficult.

There's no logic involved at the base of ethics, so I'll agree it's sloppy indeed. Plenty of wreck divers think Loot, Pillage, Plunder is a common principle. Logically speaking, they're no more wrong than the Take nothing but pictures crowd is right.

 

[modustollens]

I would think absolute responsibilities are few in number; but there are certainly relative ones. You yourself change your decision based upon who it is. I think that is fairly normal: people are more willing to take risks for someone they know than someone they don't. I suppose that is relevant to SCUBA, advanced or not: don't expect a complete stranger to rescue you if you do something stupid.

But I think your confusing what feels right with what is right. I know emotivism was popular with the Logical Positivists and guys like Ayer in the 30's. But a lot has been written since then; its an overly simplified analysis I think. It is certainly true feelings are involved; but I suspect there is more going on than simply that.

How do you decide which feeling is the one to guide you? Seems to me feelings are even more vague than ideas. And you seem to be using logic to mean some odd normative idea rather than the relationship between premises and conclusions. There is certainly logic in arguments about morality; some conclusions follow, some won't.

Not all moralists claim to derive ought from is; so, Hume's argument is quite limited. It does not mean the only alternative is emotivism.


MT

 

[markmud]

Having read through the last post by the OP, I feel confident in saying that, morally, this mess belongs in the Pub.

So, you're buying the first round!

Maker's Mark on the rocks please!

markm

---------- Post added June 26th, 2014 at 04:10 PM ----------

Hey Modustollens,

You wrote in post #33: "Are you claiming that ought statements or moral claims are merely an expression of feelings?"

A simpleton, such as myself, would consider Dr. Lecter to be a moral relativist or situational ethicist (my consideration is just a guess based on reading his posts--I don't know him).

Also, I enjoyed reading your posts--lots of fun!

markm

---------- Post added June 26th, 2014 at 04:32 PM ----------

Anybody here have a climbing background? I'm thinking of alpine climbs, or multi pitch or multi day mountain adventures. the kind where you rope up with someone and trust them with your life for the duration of the climb.

It seems that there are some commonalities, but also a lot of differences. Things like the difference between objective and subjective risk, commitment to the other person (does an insta-buddy merit less commitment than a long time friend?), and communication skills.

I've done very few dives, so i don't have much to offer. but I will say I was shocked at some of the behavior of the insta-buddies I was with, especially the ones that dove with a camera! I don't think anyone asked me how much air I had on a dive, although I tried to ask each one once during a dive, about halfway through. This made me consider myself to be essentially diving alone in a group. I had mixed feeling about that and it was one of the reasons I tried not to go much beyond 20 meters.

I am going someplace new in a few weeks, and I expect a different culture and different attitudes. I'm just not sure what.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

Hello Blyslv,

I enjoyed your post. It resonated with me because I had similar experiences as a new diver. I was trained on the buddy system and assumed it had more merit than it actually does.

I had a first stage start to crack-open at Anacapa Island (literally, it cracked open). My insta-buddy recognized my problem as both of my 2nd stages were belching air. He gave the boat signal to me and then split the scene. I made it to the surface with plenty of air and swam back to the boat. No harm, no foul.

My wife is an SOB diver (Same Ocean Buddy). She likes anyone to lead but her, and then she proceeds to lead the dive from behind.

I met an old guy (older than me) while diving the Yukon. He told me that I was dangerous to him, and that he would be safer diving solo. I asked him, how do you know I am dangerous---you don't know me. He said, "because I don't know you!" He had redundant gear and an SMB. He was probably safer by himself.

You're not the only one who has realized this conundrum.

markm

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Depends on individual preference/feeling before the dive, and on innumerable variables during it, rather than "rights" or "responsibilities" that can be neatly identified and discussed as some kind of universal standard. If it was someone I liked, I'd think nothing of hitting a PPO2 of 3.0-4.0 for a brief period of time on a lazy OC rec dive to make an attempt at saving them. If it wasn't, I might not drop below 1.4. .

That's like saying if someone were dying and they needed emergency transport to a hospital, you would keep it 10 mph under the speed limit the whole time...I don't doubt what you are saying, but it does surprise me a little that you would say it.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

That's like saying if someone were dying and they needed emergency transport to a hospital, you would keep it 10 mph under the speed limit the whole time...I don't doubt what you are saying, but it does surprise me a little that you would say it.

Risk acceptance is a personal thing. Being comfortable with a higher PO2 on a deliberately relaxed deep air dive where there's a significant amount of narcosis that may or may not counteract some of the CNS effects or accepting the elevated chance of toxing on a brief excursion to relatively extreme PO2s when it means a chance at saving someone I'd very much regret not seeing again on the surface, does not mean I'm interested in accepting even a moderately higher risk level on a shallower dive with EAN simply because another human being has a problem in my vicinity. I might do so on the spur of the moment because I felt like it...but I surely wouldn't want an otherwise stranger of a buddy thinking I felt some ex ante obligation to do so. I have no problems saying that here, because in the unlikely event I was buddy diving with Joe(sette) Blow and there was a difference in our MODs, I would say the exact same thing during our predive chat. If you're both on the same gas, then I don't see the need.

I and the guys with whom I do a lot of rather deep diving have never really had this kind of pre-dive discussion, because we each plan and come prepared to execute the dive solo and expect the others in the group to do that as well. If things went sideways for one of us, I have no doubt that we'd each take whatever risks for them we felt appropriate in the moment...and those would probably be pretty far outside the bounds of sticking to a 1.4 PPO2 ...but I doubt any of us think we have a right to expect such rescue.

 

[Scubawankenobi]

<<I believe that I (me) have a creator ...>>
<<moral responsibilities for myself based on religious tenants (ten commandments for one example)>>

If the air diver was a dog, I would not have a moral, or societal responsibility to save it at high risk to myself. A higher level of risk tolerance is ethically required to meet the societal norm for human beings.

All human beings are valuable. Except for Charles Manson, et allia.

I think your statement (above) makes it clear that morality is up to the individual, and their personal interpretation, in these situations.
See, if we expand your scenario and there were 2 needing rescue & I could only save one ... if it was MY dog requiring rescue vs some unknown diver, who might be a "worse" person than Charles Manson (who knows?) - I might just choose rescuing my dog! ( admittedly he loves swimming in the water, but not under it so much - hates it when I use scuba gear in my pool & he can't swim down to me )

Re: "have a creator..." "10 Commandments"
Well, since you brought this up, apparently along with the "morality" ( & "rights"? ) topic - that book with the 10 Cs says "do not judge", so that means not even Charles Manson (/insta-buddy). If that's the rule, I supposed you'd be just as required to put yourself at risk to rescue your spouse/child as Mr Manson ( putting aside your own lack of judgement for agreeing to be Charlie's dive buddy ).

For those scenarios debated, I don't believe a consensus would be reached - it's up to each individual & their conscience (beyond what books they read/believe).