A Social Interaction Example

Taking no Action to Help Another

Analysis:
This could occur if B is asocial, perhaps because s/he is overly shy or has incurred loss before as a result of trying to help someone (perhaps even A who has been overly Defensive or has made extreme Restitution Requests). It might also occur if:
1) B thinks that A is a despicable person (a person of negative Value to B) and B's LifeTime Happiness (LTH) would be increased more if A gets killed than if A does not. This shows that it is not in your best interest to have other people who think that you are of negative Value to them since if you are in need of help, they will have no incentive to Act. People who Value you will, in their own interest, be looking out for you to ensure that your Value to them is not decreased.
2) B has reason to think that A is wanting to die. However, it would still be better to communicate the situation to A, so that A hirself could make the Choice rather than to paternalistically Decide for hir.

This lack of any Connection by B means that A will simply continue and Perform hir Chosen Action which is to step onto the road. Therefore, the only cases left to analyze are if the truck comes or does not come.

Description of Events	Notes and Analysis
1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.	If A wanted to live, then hir LTH is now less than it would have been, so s/he suffers Harm, but s/he is the Effective Cause of that harm (under the assumption that the truck driver had Entitlement to the right of way). If A wanted to die then s/he has received an unrequested Benefit (from the driver and Owner of the truck). B has also suffered Harm because a potentially productive person has been lost (unless perhaps A wanted to die or was of negative Value to B), but A is not Responsible for Restitution of that harm because A is Entitled to take any Non-Violational Action any time s/he wishes. Thus, even though both parties may have had their LTH decreased from what it would have been (have suffered Harm), no one is Responsible for any Restitution of either Harm. Depending on the circumstances related to the variations mentioned at the start above, B may incur negative social preferencing via observers for not warning A and trying to save hir life.
2. A truck does not come.	No one has been Harmed and it is unlikely that anyone would even know that B had Information about the likelihood of a truck coming and did not supply it.

1. A truck comes along with driver having no thought of needing to stop.

If A wanted to live, then hir LTH is now less than it would have been, so s/he suffers Harm, but s/he is the Effective Cause of that harm (under the assumption that the truck driver had Entitlement to the right of way). If A wanted to die then s/he has received an unrequested Benefit (from the driver and Owner of the truck). B has also suffered Harm because a potentially productive person has been lost (unless perhaps A wanted to die or was of negative Value to B), but A is not Responsible for Restitution of that harm because A is Entitled to take any Non-Violational Action any time s/he wishes. Thus, even though both parties may have had their LTH decreased from what it would have been (have suffered Harm), no one is Responsible for any Restitution of either Harm. Depending on the circumstances related to the variations mentioned at the start above, B may incur negative social preferencing via observers for not warning A and trying to save hir life.

2. A truck does not come.

No one has been Harmed and it is unlikely that anyone would even know that B had Information about the likelihood of a truck coming and did not supply it.

If you like what you have read, please return value for value received.