Then we think about this differently. Given the context above there are those who will insist that the husband has a moral obligation to his wife. They might cite God or the Golden Rule or one or another deontological assessment of human interactions. They might quote some ideological manifesto or claim that it is natural to behave in certain ways. They might link rationality and morality as any number of philosophers have down through the ages.
But the bottom line is that for one or another reason the husband is morally obligated to respond to her calls. And, if he chooses not to, he will be punished. By God. By those mere mortals who learn of his behavior and shun him, reject him, evict him or even beat the shit out of him.
What I focus in on instead is why, in any particular context, the man chooses to do what he did. When others might choose something else. How is that related to the particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas in his life that predisposed him to act in a way that another’s collection of existential variables do not. And, given all of the different historical, cultural and experiential contexts there have been down through the ages, is there a way for philosophers to pin down the most rational behavior or the only rational behavior.
As you point out, given sufficient reason, ignoring the wife can easily be rationalized by any particular individual in any particular set of circumstances. That’s the whole point of moral objectivism – to make situational ethics go away. Some through God and religion, some through No God and religion.
Why don’t you stick to noting the distinctions these folks are likely to make given the context you noted above.
Ditto regarding my reaction to that above. We think about these things differently. It’s just that the way I think about them leaves me “fractured and fragmented” in a way that either does or does not resonate with you.
Ought I to respond to someone’s cries for help? Am I obligated to as a rational and virtuous human being? Even in a No God world? That’s all buried in dasein, conflicting goods and whatever the consequences might be when others react to the behavior that “I” do choose.
The rest is basically just you taunting me, for, among other things, not being able to follow your simple arguments. Me being “dumb just to torture you”. Me being the “asshole”, here.
And, then, of course, what I suspect is behind that.
Regardless of that, I’ll go with option b).