> Of course, he made no pact.
That's incorrect. McCandless made that pact by being part of this society. The pact is implicit: it's the act of breaking it that requires effort (if it's even allowed at all).
It is deeply subjective, and as such any notion of correctness is moot.
> It is deeply subjective, and as such any notion of correctness is moot.
Eh, not so much. Maybe that would be the case if we were talking about some idealistic "how it should be," but the GP's scenario wasn't that. Practically, in modern American society, park rangers are going to assume an obligation to rescue you without you having to make an explicit pact with them. To claim that it's otherwise is false.
Isn't the whole idea of a social contract (which is what you describe, right?) of any kind debatable and really unprovable?
Couldn't one say it simply is a responsibility they have collectively taken onto themselves, on their own?
Of course, it doesn't change what will happen, what rescuers will do. Probably won't even change how they'll do it, or how they'll express their motivations from doing so.
So... how do you prove or disprove the existence of said pact?
> McCandless was explicitly escaping society. He had already vacated his family, friends, home, money, his vehicle. At this point he's a major outlier in terms of being a member of society.
So what? How McCandless felt or what his intentions were at any particular time doesn't actually change the situation vis a vis society and its rescue personnel.