Would you intervene and why ?
Yes. Basic survival trumps property. If you can save a life you should. Accepting whatever repugnance come attached. Also, makes me want to watch Gilligans Island re runs.
Thanks for being the first one to play ! 
I have a friend whose dad owns a 6 million dollar mountain house. We stayed there one weekend and a couple days later my friend told me that his Dad complained that we ate some of his graham crackers without replacing them. I have met his Dad and he is a pretty nice guy but he has some ways about him that border on pathological. Those behaviors seem to have helped him acquire his wealth. He inspired me to think up a thought experiment that I often ask Conservatives.
“If we are stranded on a raft that’s sinking because it has a hole in it and there’s an autistic man who has some patches but he won’t let us have them because “They are his”, can we restrain him and forcibly take his patches to use? He is beyond reason and cannot be convinced to share his patches even though he might die.”
I like this thought experiment because it challenges notions of property and forcible violation of personal rights for the common good. I’ve had someone suggest that they would rather remove part of their own skin to use as a patch than violate the man’s property rights.
Stealing life saving drugs? Stealing food?
I have a friend whose dad owns a 6 million dollar mountain house. We stayed there one weekend and a couple days later my friend told me that his Dad complained that we ate some of his graham crackers without replacing them. I have met his Dad and he is a pretty nice guy but he has some ways about him that border on pathological. Those behaviors seem to have helped him acquire his wealth. He inspired me to think up a thought experiment that I often ask Conservatives.
“If we are stranded on a raft that’s sinking because it has a hole in it and there’s an autistic man who has some patches but he won’t let us have them because “They are his”, can we restrain him and forcibly take his patches to use? He is beyond reason and cannot be convinced to share his patches even though he might die.”
I like this thought experiment because it challenges notions of property and forcible violation of personal rights for the common good. I’ve had someone suggest that they would rather remove part of their own skin to use as a patch than violate the man’s property rights.
Easy. Common sense must prevail. There is an obligation to override someone unable to make a rational decision regarding their own survival. And the threat of imminent death trumps property rights – every time.
Perhaps you could replace your friend’s Dad’s graham crackers, with a note thanking him for his hospitality; sarcasm with a smile.