the office of father

Ok. How much right does a father* have to risk his own safety?

Al is a husband/father. He's driving his car down the road and he sees a hitch-hiker.
If Al is alone in the car (his family is elsewhere and safe), has he any right to pick up the hitch-hiker?

Now, instead of a hitch-hiker, we have an apparently injured man. But Al has heard on the news of a gang who ambushes motorists by having one gang member pretend to be injured on the side of the road. When someone stops to help, they mug that person. This person Al sees may be genuinely hurt, or may be setting an ambush for him.
Again, if Al is alone in the car is it permissable for him to risk his safety to attempt helping the apparently injured man?

Now, what if there is an injured child on the side of the road, only Al has heard on the news of a gang who deliberately injures children in order to set ambushes on the sides of roads. It is near certain the child Al sees is genuinely injured, while there may or may not be a gang waiting to ambush Al if he stops to help the child.
Should Al stop to help the injured child?

Is it permissable for a father, knowing that his family depends on him and therefore needs him fit and healthy, to:
sky dive?
volunteer for the fire department?
be a boxer?
smoke cigarettes?
become a police officer?
drive a car with bald tires?
hitch-hike?

* I wonder also about mothers and risk-taking.

Originally posted by huntingbear
Ok. How much right does a father* have to risk his own safety?

Al is a husband/father. He's driving his car down the road and he sees a hitch-hiker.
If Al is alone in the car (his family is elsewhere and safe), has he any right to pick up the hitch-hiker?

Now, instead of a hitch-hiker, we have an apparently injured man. But Al has heard on the ne ...[text shortened]... er?
drive a car with bald tires?
hitch-hike?

* I wonder also about mothers and risk-taking.

Well, we have to consider what exactly the consequences are if the father is killed/permanently incapacitated, in addition to the usual reasons why people don't want to die:

Grief - In almost every case where someone dies prematurely, some people will be extremely upset. However, this is going to be particularly traumatic for the partner and the children of the deceased (along with any surviving parents). I don't really know how to assess the 'cost' of this, but it's certainly something to do consider if there's a high risk of death.

Lack of male role model - This is especially an issue for any sons, though it could also affect daughters' perception of men to some extent. The wife may well find someone to step into the father role, but if she doesn't or until she does the sons will lose an important source of information regarding what is 'conventional' male behaviour, and even if/when she does remarry, the children may not 'bond' with the new father to the same extent. I'd say this is less important now than it was in the past, as the socially enforced distinctions between male and female behaviour have been reduced significantly, but it's still significant to many people.

Single motherhood - A more general problem is that the mother, at least until she finds a new partner, is likely to carry the brunt of both bringing up the children and earning money for the family. In the modern world the issue for single mothers is not so much that they're prevented from working by sexism, but that it's extremely difficult for one person to find time for everything. On the other hand, if there is a strong extended family, relatives may be able to help out a lot, eg grandparents.

Single father? - In all the above I've assumed that the father is in a 'nuclear' family consisting of him, his wife and his children. But if he has sole responsibility for the children, things could be rather more serious. In most cases, the children could be adopted by other relatives, but they may have problems looking after the children (eg if they're elderly and have little money or energy to spare); if there are no suitable relatives, the children may be adopted by non-relatives, but failing that will end up in an orphanage. So I'd say the risks are much greater for a single father than one who has a partner.

Al should do what most fathers do. Take out suitable life insurance and do what he bloody well pleases.

This is a real conundrum, isn't it?
You could also question whether a couple who know they share genes which may cause their child to be born with a severe birth defect or disease have the right to choose to have a child.
We already know that women have been held legally responsible for giving birth to drug-addicted children, but what are parents morally required to do, or not to do?

Originally posted by huntingbear
...what if there is an injured child on the side of the road, ...

Originally posted by elvendreamgirl
We already know that women have been held legally responsible for giving birth to drug-addicted children

Originally posted by zucchini
You are making this difficult.😕

I was hoping so 😉

I would most likely stop in any case (unless I felt somehow it was a set-up).

Same here. Except for the ordinary hitch-hiker while my family is with me. Lately I'm beginning to think I might need to pass by the ordinary hitch-hiker when I'm alone, too. I feel I don't have the right to accept that much risk to myself.

I assume that you do not allow the use of a cell phone, and that there is not a reasonable alternative like running into a nearby business to get help.

I have begun carrying a mobile phone with me. In the event of an injured person on the side of the road, I'll dial 000 (our equivalent of 911) first and then get out to help.
But out in the country, miles from police or hospitals, that would make little difference. In such a case I would stop to help, risk or not. Still, I wonder if that's the right decision.

Bear in mind that in many places there are laws that require a passerby to assist someone in need.

Excellent point!

Is fear really a good reason for not doing the right thing?

Absolutely not, in my opinion.
But fear is one thing; the conflicting moral imperative of being present and active as father and husband is another.

As for your list of permissables: Why should I limit my activities if I take proper precautions? It really depends upon the risk, and is a personal matter.

Precautions can lower risks, that's true. Maybe a 1 in x risk becomes a 1 in y risk, where y>x. But what's the minimum morally permissable x or y?
In the end all the possibilities are risk-vs-payoff decisions. For example, I don't think a father should smoke cigarettes*. The risk far outweighs the 'payoff'.
But in the main I agree that it is a 'personal matter', in the sense that we can't really lay down hard and fast rules. We can't quantify all the risks and we can't quantify the payoffs in order to make a mathematical comparison. We don't know the y's and x's.
Pradtf and imvegan told me, and I knew they were right, that a thread of this kind won't answer the questions for me. Still, I thought this would be a good topic for discussion and more uplifting than some of the debates.

I have always wanted to hang-glide, but have decided not to because of the cost to my family in case I have an accident. Will I try when my children have left and I am 50? I doubt it. So I enjoy my family now and have stopped thinking about hang-gliding. Maybe someone else might decide this is a risk worth taking.

What if a hang-glider was the only way by which you could reach an injured child on an island to kill the advancing crocodile before it attacked the child? 😉 😀 (I'm not expecting an answer to that 🙂 )

* I used to smoke cigarettes, though I was a father and husband. It took many difficult tries, but eventually I became free of that addiction. I regret having risked my health, and therefore my presence with my family as a father and husband, for mere gratification of my own desires.

Originally posted by gumbie
Al should do what most fathers do. Take out suitable life insurance and do what he bloody well pleases.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Oh dear. In that case, it doesn't matter whose fault it is; medical help should be given to mother and child, especially in cases where the baby is the result of, eg prostitution to feed a habit. It's misguided to punish a mother f ...[text shortened]... on would be if started using a harmful drug when already pregnant.

Originally posted by huntingbear
I think Al should remember that there's more to fatherhood than money.

Originally posted by gumbie
I believe there is also more to life than worrying about things that are highly unlikely.

Some of my examples are highly unlikely. Some are quite common. That's part of what I meant by differing degrees of risk.
Of course there's more to life than worrying. But it would be a mistake to think there's less. Since my family was recently threatened with violence, I think you might consider forgiving me if I do a little more worrying lately than usual.

Or maybe Al should never travel by car which is the most probable cause of premature death of a father.

I very much considered listing that risk myself. Thanks for the contribution!

go help even at risk could you turn away? remember the samaritan story, tho if female carry a phone, fully charged. but my fear is driving along a quiet road there is a woman lying there semi naked you stop help only to find she had been raped and your dna is on her clothes and body because you helped pick her up she describes the attacker and you fit the bill how do you prove it wasnt you?

Originally posted by stoker
go help even at risk could you turn away? remember the samaritan story, tho if female carry a phone, fully charged. but my fear is driving along a quiet road there is a woman lying there semi naked you stop help only to find she had been raped and your dna is on her clothes and body because you helped pick her up she describes the attacker and you fit the bill how do you prove it wasnt you?