The Spider in the Urinal & The Issue of Non-interference

This was originally going to be a response to Reacher's thread ' Dialectic: The Nature of Reality ' (which I will respond to later today), but I didn't want to derail the conversation between him and Adder. I would however recommend that people read Reacher's OP first as this thread is kind of linked to that, specifically the first video involving the 3 prisoners.

My question revolves around the morality of the escapee's decision to return to the prisoners in the cave and try and inform them of the outside world. Especially given that they were tied up, and he did not appear to be able to free them. It reminded me of the story of 'The Spider in the Urinal' by Thomas Nagel, in his essay 'Birth, Death, and the Meaning of Life'. It addresses the issue of non-interference.

For those unfamiliar with this tale I'll summarise:

Whilst visiting the restroom one day, Nagel noticed a small spider in one of the urinals. To Nagel, the spider was living an awful life, constantly being peed on. Every time Nagel used the restroom he felt worse and worse for this poor little spider, because he was trapped by the smooth porcelain overhang, there was no way for him to get out if he wanted to, and no way to tell whether he wanted to. Finally, at the end of the term, Nagel took a paper towel and extended it to the spider. The spider grasped the end of the paper towel and Nagel lifted him up and put him down on the floor.

The spider just sat there, unmoving, Nagel nudged him with the paper towel but nothing happened. 2 hours later the spider was still there. The next day his legs were shriveled in that way dead spiders so often are. His corpse stayed there for a week, until they finally swept the floor.

Nagel acted out of empathy, thinking he was helping the spider, but in reality the opposite was true. Much like the escapee in Plato's Cave.

It's an interesting tale because because it asks us to consider 'How can we ever know what anyone really wants?' Nagel was positive that the spider would want out of the urinal just as the escapee was positive the other prisoners would want to know of the world outside.

It also forces us to question our policies of intervention. Despite our best intentions, interference can sometimes inflict unanticipated harm.

So, I suppose my question is really do you think Nagel and/or the escapee were right in their decision even it though things didnt work out the way they intended it to? And how do you guys decide when is the right time to intervene in certain events and when is it best to leave them alone? What are the things you consider?

I'd love to hear your thoughts

For me it's about the balance of probability... if I do X, what is likely to happen? How acceptable is that outcome? Acceptability is also about other's perceptions as well as mine, but that doesn't mean that I have to stop based on of how unacceptable they might think my actions are.

For all we know, Nagel's spider was about to pop its clogs anyway.. his interference may have made no difference to the outcome of that spider's life.

In truth, it's entirely about the situation.

On the balance of probability a spider in a urinal is less likely to survive than one out of a urinal, and in that place I would have chosen to 'save' the spider.
Were it a human stuck in a urinal, I probably would have left them to it.

Edit: Regarding the escapees.. they say ignorance is bliss.. but I also believe in knowledge even when that knowledge is difficult or painful to hear.

Edan wrote: ... I would have chosen to 'save' the spider.
Were it a human stuck in a urinal, I probably would have left them to it.

Edit: Regarding the escapees.. they say ignorance is bliss.. but I also believe in knowledge even when that knowledge is difficult or painful to hear.

Thanks for the response Edan

I too would have 'saved' the spider in that instance, but I don't think I have told the prisoners about the outside world.

They say 'seeing is believing', and with no way of showing them the world outside, or helping them to get free from the cave and into the outside world, I don't see what purpose it would have served. I could only see two outcomes from telling them, either they'd not believe me without evidence and therefore accuse me of being mad (which is what happened in Plato's tale), or they would believe me and therefore spend the rest of their lives being miserable because they're unable to see the ideal.

Terry Goodkind wrote: Wizard's Second Rule: "The greatest harm can result from the best intentions."
~ Stone of Tears, Chapter 63, page 886

Balance of probabilities is a good place to start when considering our actions, but we must be mindful that we can only interpret a situation from our own perspective which may or may not coincide with the outlook of the one we seek to help. Care should be taken not to impose our principles and standards on another not willing to accept them.

For illustrative purposes, generations ago the government of my country decided the children of the first people of this country would be 'better off' being raised according to the government's standards and implemented a policy of (forcibly) removing those children from their parents and communities. Not only is there no way of determining if those children really did receive any advantage but the policy only served to divide the people of our country rather than improving integration - the damage done is still being felt to this day.

In the example of the prisoners in the cave, there is no way of knowing they will never escape; after all one of them already did. By returning and feeding them the knowledge they are being denied the opportunity to discover it for themselves.

I think the key is to recognise that none of us has all the answers and that whilst we should always strive to be available to help those who may benefit from it, they must want the help. All of us are on our own path and should be empowered to follow it. For the record, I too would have extended the paper towel to the spider - it's up to the spider to take the opportunity or not.

I picked up a book awhile back...got most of the way through it before I was siderailed with something else...but totally need to go back and read it again from the beginning.

The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention - by Rajan Menon

The general topic of the book is on quite a larger scale than "rescuing" a spider from a urinal, but I think the root message is very similar. We struggle with this in Western societies, where we look down on other peoples and assume that they need/want our assistance to "better" their lives/conditions. History suggests this is not particularly true, perhaps at all, yet we cannot buck the notion that everyone else in the world doesn't want what we have. In a sense, our own arrogance and appreciation for our values and lifestyle creates an illusion of success that we presume all other like beings would also appreciate.

Consider, for an immediate example, the conditions of North Korea. That population has lived at a nearly polar-opposite level of what we deem to be our own success for the better half of a century or more. We have yet to allow relations escalate to that "line-in-the-sand" point, thus far, as I suspect that all other would-be interventionists acknowledge the immediate humanitarian challenges any such conflict would carry.

At what point here do we treat North Korea as a spider in the urinal, and should we rescue them to the floor, or let them find their way over the porcelain lip, should they decide to?

Great example both of you! Thank you for commenting.

Dano Ori wrote: I think the key is to recognise that none of us has all the answers and that whilst we should always strive to be available to help those who may benefit from it, they must want the help

I think that last bit is particularly important, which Sam alluded too as well, we can only ever truly help those that want to be helped. It's like the expression 'you can lead a horse to water but you cant him drink'

Brick wrote: Great example both of you! Thank you for commenting.

Dano Ori wrote: I think the key is to recognise that none of us has all the answers and that whilst we should always strive to be available to help those who may benefit from it, they must want the help

I think that last bit is particularly important, which Sam alluded too as well, we can only ever truly help those that want to be helped. It's like the expression 'you can lead a horse to water but you cant him drink'

Yet...at the same time...that expression also assumes the horse wants to be near water...or that if the horse were in need of water he wouldn't go there himself?

That spurs a question of the little saying "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." Allegorical and what not, sure, but whose to say the guy even likes to eat fish? Perhaps when we consider trying to influence or intervene in the lives of others at all...we should assess first whether we have been asked to assist. Otherwise, we are just making assumptions based upon the world as we see it, and nothing more.

*Insert "you know what happens when you assume" line*

So for the allegory of Plato's cave to be valid, a person must ascribe to Plato's Theory of Forms . Basically, the idea is that everything has an 'essence', and intangible ideal of itself that is expressed by the imperfection of perceived reality. If Plato's perception of reality is 'right', then ethically speaking he has much more justification in his desire to let the prisoners go. If he is wrong, then releasing the prisoners is an exercise in interference. Plato does admit that this theory does have limitations, but it also has some serious strengths. This conception of reality is part of the intellectual tradition that spawned objective scientific method - that did some good things for us. Without this proto-idea, objectivity is not really a thing. As part of that tradition, Plato's pupil Aristotle contrasted Plato's idea of Forms by saying that anything we know can ONLY be based on empirical , sensory observation. There is a great painting called The School of Athens by Raphael that captures the dialogue between these two philosophies. Here is a piece of it where Plato is pointing up, signifying Form, and Aristotle is gesturing to the world around him:



One of the big issues stemming from the idea of Forms is categorization. We can neck down animals from Kingdom, Phylum...on down...but how do you assign less ordered things to Forms...like beauty? Two vastly dissimilar things might fall under an intangible category of 'beautiful.' So yeah, issues abound.

Back to our poor spider bro. Is this analogous to Plato's Cave? I think Plato would say no - that his theory of reality is valid and comparing spider bro to the cave is apples and oranges. I think fellas like Sun Tzu, Confucius, and Mencius would see some echoes of analogy, though. They might see spider bro as it relates to the harmony of the other things around it. Interference might upset that balance. Or, they might see him as discordant from what other 'like' creatures generally are and move him as well. Whichever they choose, they would choose not from the 'objective' idea that spiders don't belong in urinals, and that getting peed on is degrading. They would choose from what they believe is the most harmonious version of subjective reality. Lots of thought buildout for essentially two choices, eh? I contend that this explains some of the differences between Jedi and Sith - you might see two folks who achieve the same degree of excellence, work equally as hard, and possess similar skillsets. Those attributes and personal drives simply stem from different conceptions of reality.

On the North Korea analogy, I was thinking...we don't really know how spider bro found himself in the urinal. Maybe he jumped there. Maybe he was born there. Maybe he recognized his only chance at life was to wash himself in the waters of others on the reg. But...if someone consciously constructed that bowl and meant to use it as a way to prevent spider bro from having the choice to leave - that might be more related to the North Korea scenario. If the west decides to interfere, it won't be out of love for our North Korean spider bros caught in a bowl that no one made. Someone made it. Someone keeps making it. And if interference does occur, it'll be because it is in our interests to interfere. That is an entirely different ball of wax that would need its own thread.

Brick...I have to say - this is fantastic. Thank you for opening up thisdiscussion!

I am the first to admit that I am not filled with complicated philosophical knowledge. These recent discussions are so interesting, and I love learning about all of them.

I guess I approach this type of problem from a spiritual perspective... since mysticism is really my field of study. In this case, either choice is wrong, depending on the point of view you look from. On the one hand, helping spiderbro builds a sense of internal empathy. You decided that you wouldn't like to be peed on every day, and you put yourself in the spider's place. You would want somebody to help you.

But, we know nothing of the spider. Perhaps spiderbro was already dying, hence why he hadn't moved. Perhaps it was the best place to catch bugs, and who cares about piss? I'm sure he didn't mind too much.

We cannot put ourselves totally in the spider's position. We don't understand spiders. We know about spiders.. but, who among us is a spider expert?

Now, what if you were a spider expert. You probably would have made a different choice. Knowing more about their behavior, maybe you would have chosen a different method of transport. Maybe you would have known that the spider wanted to be where he was.

Compassion and Empathy are much more complex than "put yourself in somebody's position". Even more so when the other being is not a human. At least then you'd have similar perspectives to work from.

Now... since I am a mystic, I should also say that this metaphorically can relate to spiritual service. If we can see each other through the Force, then compassion can be shown in a way that works most benevolently. But, if we see each other only through our eyes, then our egos and our own perspectives can get in the way.

What if the most benevolent action we could have taken was to stand outside on a street corner yelling to a cloud about the spider? Of course, it's probably not... but, when we "think" and "process", we can oftentimes either over- or under-think it.

It's complicated. Lovely topic, thanks for sharing.

I always pee on the spider, every time. I'm must be bad at Jediing.....