1. Is it justifiable for Ann to let a stranger die to ensure her safety?
If we acknowledge a moral duty to help others or prevent their harm, Ann's decision not to warn the stranger about a poisoned stream seems reprehensible--even despicable. Not only is she a moral coward whose forbearance endangers another's life, but she hypocritically tries to justify her negligence by claiming she's "not sure" the stream is dangerous to bathe in (26)--though she knows it's poisoned and dead due to flowing from outside the valley (17, 30-31).
Morality versus Law
Morality and law provide different standards for judging Ann’s behavior. It's of course a common moral idea that people should help one another, as far as possible treating others as we wish to be treated. However, societies’ laws differ about the duty to rescue and the fault of culpable inaction.
English law distinguishes action (“feasance”) from inaction (“nonfeasance”) and generally views people as legally responsible only for their actions. People are only culpable for inaction in certain circumstances, as when there’s a special relationship or contractual duty requiring them to help another, or when they’re legally responsible for a source of harm (e.g., a hazard on their property).
On the other hand, since World War II, most legal systems in Continental Europe have recognized the duty to rescue. For example, Article 62 in the French Penal Code states, “Any person who willfully fails to render or to obtain assistance to an endangered person when such was possible without danger to himself or others, shall be subject to [punishment]." Similarly, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states, “Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason."
Moreover, in some places following English Common Law (e.g., Canada and some US states), there are so-called “Good Samaritan laws” designed to encourage people to help those in need without fear of being sued for unintentional injury. These laws are named after the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in which a man lying by the road after being beaten and robbed is first ignored by a priest and a Levite passing by, then helped by a traveler from Samaria. The parable concerns interpretation of the Old Testament command, “love…your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Its moral lesson is that people should show mercy to everyone, without prejudice.
English law distinguishes action (“feasance”) from inaction (“nonfeasance”) and generally views people as legally responsible only for their actions. People are only culpable for inaction in certain circumstances, as when there’s a special relationship or contractual duty requiring them to help another, or when they’re legally responsible for a source of harm (e.g., a hazard on their property).
On the other hand, since World War II, most legal systems in Continental Europe have recognized the duty to rescue. For example, Article 62 in the French Penal Code states, “Any person who willfully fails to render or to obtain assistance to an endangered person when such was possible without danger to himself or others, shall be subject to [punishment]." Similarly, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states, “Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason."
Moreover, in some places following English Common Law (e.g., Canada and some US states), there are so-called “Good Samaritan laws” designed to encourage people to help those in need without fear of being sued for unintentional injury. These laws are named after the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in which a man lying by the road after being beaten and robbed is first ignored by a priest and a Levite passing by, then helped by a traveler from Samaria. The parable concerns interpretation of the Old Testament command, “love…your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Its moral lesson is that people should show mercy to everyone, without prejudice.
Oxford University Comparative Law Forum: Liability for Nonfeasance; A Comparative Study
http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/kortmann.shtml#II
Agulnick, Peter. “Criminal Liability for Failure to Rescue: A Brief Survey of French and American Law.”
http://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/duty.html
The Life of the Law: Wait, What? No Duty to Rescue?
http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/wait-what-no-duty-to-rescue/
Ethical and Legal Implications of the Bystander Effect (the “Kitty Genovese Syndrome”)
http://prezi.com/9qncq4_dra32/ethical-and-legal-implications-of-the-bystander-effect/
Wikipedia: Good Samaritan Law
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Good_Samaritan_law.html
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Wikipedia: The Parable of the Good Samaritan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan
Yahoo Answers: Duty to Rescue under Civil Law and Common Law?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100708175456AA4PHXP
http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/kortmann.shtml#II
Agulnick, Peter. “Criminal Liability for Failure to Rescue: A Brief Survey of French and American Law.”
http://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/duty.html
The Life of the Law: Wait, What? No Duty to Rescue?
http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/wait-what-no-duty-to-rescue/
Ethical and Legal Implications of the Bystander Effect (the “Kitty Genovese Syndrome”)
http://prezi.com/9qncq4_dra32/ethical-and-legal-implications-of-the-bystander-effect/
Wikipedia: Good Samaritan Law
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Good_Samaritan_law.html
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Wikipedia: The Parable of the Good Samaritan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan
Yahoo Answers: Duty to Rescue under Civil Law and Common Law?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100708175456AA4PHXP
2. In their situation, is it selfish for Ann to deny companionship to another lone survivor?
Ann thinks "it seems wrong" to fear the stranger might befriend her cousin's dog, Faro (36). Presumably, it seems wrong because she lacks compassion for another lone survivor in need of companionship. The question of Ann's selfishness in denying Faro as a companion also raises the question of whether she is selfish to withhold her own companionship from another lone survivor (after he calls out in a friendly manner, seems normal, and shows no sign of being a threat).