Ethics: do you have to help your no-good sibling?

[Janx]

I've prefixed this as an ethics question. Somebody will point out there's a better term for these kinds of questions. Whatever.

The question I'm pondering, is there some sort of requirement/expectation that you always have to help family, even if they are a good-for-nothing person?

What prompted this for me, was seeing the latest "No ordindary family" show with the good-for-nothing brother visiting. It got me pondering.

Do you always have to come to your family member's aid?

Give them a place to stay?
Feed them?
bail them out of jail?
hide them from the police?
help them bury the body?



One of the complaints I heard about Iraq, is the culture over there is such that people ALWAYS choose family over any other. Thus, a family may hide a murderer or rapist from the law. Even though they know he is a bad man.

The result was it made it hard to track down bad guys over there, because the people protected their family members.

Ignoring where it came from, thats an example where choosing family over all other considerations as an extreme means that justice is prevented.

But what about lesser cases?

If your kid is lazy and doesn't get a job, and gets thrown out of his apartment, do you HAVE to let them move back in?

Is it wrong not to let them stay there, knowing they'll not change?

Is it wrong to stay in school and not drop-out to support your parents who are alcoholics by working a dead-end job?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Well, barring the culture oddities (and culture oddities, ime, are truly odd), I'm a believer in second chances. As long as the relative isn't truly worthless or dangerous, and is making an honest effort to better himself or be helpful, I'd be there. Frankly, I think it's important for friends and family to stick together; indeed, I wish there was more of that my own culture (that is, America).

That said, no one should endanger themselves for the sake of a reckless or troublesome (or "evil") relative. Most folks have families, property, reputations to consider-- so no hiding family from gangsters, or putting up with meth cookers, or the like. It's one thing to lend an helping hand; it's quite another to be made a chump of, or worse.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I believe in second chances, I don't believe in jeopardizing myself and those close to me to give a second chance. And when you're asked to hide a lawbreaking relative (assuming there is no meaningful reason to break the law in question), you're potentially endangering both yourself AND the fugitive.

But that's generalities: each situation has unique aspects, and without knowing the details & particulars, you can't really get to a meaningful answer.

 

[Stumblewyk]

Well, my mentally ill younger brother (27 years old) is slowly bleeding my parents dry, driving his friends and loved ones away time after time, and is a ticking time bomb waiting to kill himself because he refuses to take his medication. He's old enough to hold down a job (he refuses to stay at one for more than a few months), old enough to live on his own, and old enough to know better.

Despite the fact that he's going to destroy himself and my parents, my mother and father simply can't do nothing for him. They give him a home rent free (while my younger sister pays rent for her room), they don't charge him for groceries, they help him with bills, and my dad just got him a job at the family company.

Obviously...it's not his fault that he's sick. But it is his fault that he won't listen to doctors, family, or therapists. Despite how much I'd love to be able to say "cut him off, make him stand on his own," I don't think I could do it. He's family. He's my brother. But I have been able to partially cut him out of MY life - I've moved about 2 hours away (not to avoid him, to live in my wife's hometown), and our relationship has certainly changed since we were kids - I'd still have to help him if he needed it.

Now...all that aside, if he did something illegal, screw him. I'm calling the cops and forcing him to get the help he needs.

TLDR; My brother is mentally ill, needs help, won't get help, is a danger to himself and others, and I still couldn't completely abandon him.

 

[Croesus]

One of the complaints I heard about Iraq, is the culture over there is such that people ALWAYS choose family over any other. Thus, a family may hide a murderer or rapist from the law. Even though they know he is a bad man.

The result was it made it hard to track down bad guys over there, because the people protected their family members.

Ignoring where it came from, thats an example where choosing family over all other considerations as an extreme means that justice is prevented.

Perhaps, but another way of looking at this is that every single one of us has competing loyalties and obligations. You're expected to be there for family and friends, but you're also needed at work, and oh yeah, you made that commitment to bring tools to the volunteer event, and you need to make time to walk the dog, oh and you said you'd watch the neighbor's kids while she goes on her job interview, and then your lazy relative shows up wanting a place to crash...

The specific example you posted above has the implicit assumption that one's obligation to a larger political entity (city, state, country) or a principle ("justice") should necessarily be greater than one's obligations to one's family or friends. That's not how many societies see things, so from their point of view, it's our choices that are misguided, not theirs.

Note your use of the term "bad" twice in the post above. They may not see the person as "bad". If so, how will that affect their perception of the proper course of action?

Bottom line, I don't believe there is a single right answer for such questions. Each of us has to balance the competing obligations in our lives. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes wrong. I'm not suggesting that morality is completely relative, simply that individuals and societies can and do balance obligations differently.

 

[Merkuri]

You have to take things like this on a case-by-case basis. Family is important, but sometimes you have to use "tough love" to help them learn how to live on their own.

For example, if you've got a deadbeat relative that keeps losing their job because they "weren't into it" or were too stoned to do the job properly, you do not want to continue giving this person a place to live time after time. By being someone they can keep coming to for rescue you are teaching this person that what they're doing is okay. You're not giving them any incentive to change.

You find other ways to help them, things they may not want but things they need, like job counseling, rehab, maybe providing a house for them if (and only if) they pay the rent. You shouldn't be giving them hand outs, but "hand ups".

 

[jaerdaph]

Sometimes you help by not helping (i.e. enabling).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My brother is mentally ill, needs help, won't get help, is a danger to himself and others, and I still couldn't completely abandon him.

You probably need to look into the field of "Lifeboat Ethics"- boiled down, you're not required to endanger yourself in order to save others. You have the right to set limits.

There are also books like George McGovern's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Terry-Daughters-Life-Death-Alcoholism/dp/0452278236"]Terry[/ame], which is about the life of his daughter, an alcoholic.

No, mental illness and addiction are not the same thing, but ill and addicted people put their families through the same kinds of pain; the same emotional rollercoasters.

You may find some help there. And if not there, I hope you find help somewhere.

 

[frankthedm]

Family first is an important biological imperative. But sometimes the family has to accept an individual is in no way a family member and must be dealt with for the good of the group.

Unfortunately Parents rarely can accept their failure when it takes the form of their offspring. SO while you don't have to help your no good sibling, your parents probably will and will take your inaction as an offense against Their Empire [family].

 

[Stumblewyk]

You probably need to look into the field of "Lifeboat Ethics"- boiled down, you're not required to endanger yourself in order to save others. You have the right to set limits.

Ethically, I agree with you 100%. And it's real easy to get indignant and puff my chest out and say that I want nothing to do with helping my brother.

It's an entirely different thing to actually have to do it.

And I think that's kind of what the OP is missing - it's not just about what we should do, or what we're expected to do in a situation where a sibling or loved one is a danger. It's also about what your heart tells you is the right thing to do, even when your head tells you it's 100% wrong.

If we're talking about PC or NPC motivations, then I think that needs to be weighed in to the equation. Sometimes you just feel motivated to do something you know is wrong for reasons entirely outside of logical reasoning.