Save who

[mycrabface]

If there was a burning building and everyone who's inside it were all your loved ones, and you could only go in and save one person, who would it be?

[quantum]

If there was so a situation, wouldn't the act of entering such a building include myself as being inside it?  In order to satisfy these requirements I may have the choice of saving myself, or somehow save someone else while letting myself perish. 

[ramseytheii]

"The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: 'Should one risk one's life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?'

Consider the implications of that approach.  If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):

1. Lack of self-esteem - since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.

2. Lack of respect for others - since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help.

3. A nightmare view of existence - since he believes that men are trapped in a 'malevolent universe' where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.

4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality - since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever."

--- The Ethics of Emergencies by Ayn Rand.

===

Walter Ramsey

[lichristine]

i would save my pet tarantula!!

okay probably not but i don't like the question.

[mycrabface]

If there was so a situation, wouldn't the act of entering such a building include myself as being inside it?  In order to satisfy these requirements I may have the choice of saving myself, or somehow save someone else while letting myself perish. 

You are one selfish ****... No. You don't love anyone enough that you'd risk losing your life to save him/her?? Okay then keep it that way

[ramseytheii]

You are one selfish ****... No. You don't love anyone enough that you'd risk losing your life to save him/her?? Okay then keep it that way

"By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men.  It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others - that to value another means to sacrifice oneself - that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones."


------The Ethics of Emergencies by Ayn Rand

===

Walter Ramsey

[thalberg]

Wow, Walter.  That is some profound material.  Convincing on the one hand, and on the other hand a nice way to unburden ourselves of the guilt we may feel for having our lives somewhat in order while others may not.

But to argue *against altruism?*  I don't know..... I mean, Mother Teresa gave her whole life to helping the most destitute among humanity.  If I could lie on my deathbed and look back over a life like that, I do not think I would regret it!  Nor would I fear what came after death.

Through self-sacrifice we gain life and freedom.  Through self-preservation we lose it.  If we spend our lives assuming other people are fine and seeking our own good our hearts clench up and we die imo.

[quantum]

You are one selfish ****... No. You don't love anyone enough that you'd risk losing your life to save him/her?? Okay then keep it that way

I am examining the logical irony of your question.  By entering a burning building you automatically enter yourself into the equation.  You become part of the whole, of which only  one can be saved. 

One can also argue that by putting your life at risk, what would that speak of your love for loved ones who you potentially could leave behind if you die. 

[ramseytheii]

Wow, Walter.  That is some profound material.  Convincing on the one hand, and on the other hand a nice way to unburden ourselves of the guilt we may feel for having our lives somewhat in order while others may not.

But to argue *against altruism?*  I don't know..... I mean, Mother Teresa gave her whole life to helping the most destitute among humanity.  If I could lie on my deathbed and look back over a life like that, I do not think I would regret it!  Nor would I fear what came after death.

Through self-sacrifice we gain life and freedom.  Through self-preservation we lose it.  If we spend our lives assuming other people are fine and seeking our own good our hearts clench up and we die imo.

There are plenty of arguments against Mother Theresa as well.

===

"'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or nonvalue.  Thus, altruism gauges a man's virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less 'selfish,' than help to those one loves).  The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value toa  lesser one...

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one's selfish interests.  If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a 'sacrifice' for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies...

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him - as the ethics of alutruism would require.  That would be a sacrifice."


--- The Ethics of Emergencies by Ayn Rand



==

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

install a fire alarm and get everyone out.  i think it's not a matter to wait until it happens.

[quantum]

install a fire alarm and get everyone out.  i think it's not a matter to wait until it happens.

Good inexpensive, and practical solution.

[ahinton]

install a fire alarm and get everyone out.  i think it's not a matter to wait until it happens.

No disrespect to Walter here (since his agenda has been different and interesting), but that's about the only good common sense that's been offered here so far.

Best,

Alistair

[mycrabface]

Wow, Walter.  That is some profound material.  Convincing on the one hand

doesn't convince me.. give us another passage!

[mycrabface]

I am examining the logical irony of your question.  By entering a burning building you automatically enter yourself into the equation.  You become part of the whole, of which only  one can be saved. 

One can also argue that by putting your life at risk, what would that speak of your love for loved ones who you potentially could leave behind if you die. 

Stop trying to find fault with the question. You know what its asking. The second paragraph is up to you to think about it if you want to because its not what I asked.

[quantum]

The second paragraph is up to you to think about it if you want to because its not what I asked.

It may not be what you asked, but it is an inherent part of the circumstances that may arise from the said actions. 

Does your frame of consciousness only concern you with what you see with your naked eyes, or do you retain comprehension of a bigger picture? 

[thalberg]

There are plenty of arguments against Mother Theresa as well.

Walter Ramsey

Yes, I know there are arguments against her.  But what arguments would really stand?  This woman helped and stood up for the poorest, the sickest, the most rejected members of the human race.  NO ONE cared about these people in the least bit.  She was their only help, their only advocate.  She took babies out of trash cans and took care of them, for goodness sake.  Who is going to argue against that? Who will agree with such an argument? 

[ramseytheii]

doesn't convince me.. give us another passage!

Ayn Rand is essentially arguing that you can't derive a functional set of ethics from emergency situations.

==

"In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort.  He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others.  He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human survival is impossible.

The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others.

Poverty, ignorance, illness and other problems of that kind are not metaphysical emergencies.  By the metaphysical nature of man and of existence, man has to maintain his life by his own effort; the values he needs - such as wealth or knowledge - are not given to him automatically, as a gift of nature, but have to be discovered and achieved by his own thinking and work.  One's sole obligation towards others, in this respect, is to maintain a social system that leaves men free to achieve, to gain and to keep their values.

Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics, that is: from a theory about the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts.  The altruist ethics is based on a 'malevolent universe' metaphysics, on the theory that man, by his very nature, is helpless and doomed - that success, happiness, achievement are impossible to him - that emergencies, disasters, catastrophes are the norm of his life and that his primary goal is to combat them.

As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics - as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of his existence - observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.

Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men's normal existence and that they always offer 'lifeboat' situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct.  ('What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one?' etc.)

The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats - and that a lifeboat is not the place on which oto base one's metaphysics.

The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness.  This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency.  But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental - as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence - and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life."

--- The Ethics of Emergencies by Ayn Rand

=====



Walter Ramsey

[Torp]

I think the last paragraph from Walter's post sums up Ayn Rand’s overall philosophy very well. My interpretation of her teaching would probably be, “The greatest good will come to mankind through each person’s ultimate expression as an individual.” I’m sure that’s rather simplified. In my defense, however, even Ayn Rand had to write many thousands of pages in order to try and get her ideas across. Other ethical systems believe that the greatest good will come to mankind via sacrificing one’s own desires in order to fulfill the desires of others. This is by far the most pervasive ethical system in the world today (that certainly doesn’t mean it’s right, just means it’s popular). In my own experience the greatest people I have ever personally known have been able to meld these seemingly conflicting systems into one. They have lived a life based on personal growth. They have also lived a life based on helping others to live the same way.

I also believe Ayn Rand is correct when she says that you can’t build an ethical system based on emergencies. Take for instance the football team (soccer for us Americans) that crashed in the Andes some 20-30 years ago. Eventually they were faced with two choices, eat or die. That’s it, eat or die. If they decided to eat they had one choice, eat a dead person, probably their friend and team mate. Most decided to eat and live. Fast forward to when they are rescued. Now one of them is standing in a supermarket. There are literally millions of choices of things to eat, and if at that moment he chooses none of them his life isn’t threatened. From where he is standing now he is overcome with guilt for his prior actions. The comparison of these situations is an unjust one. You can’t judge his choices by looking at an ethical system that was created in an environment of essentially limitless choices. The reverse is also true; you can’t create a useful ethical code when your only choices are eat or die.

In direct answer to the question, however, since I don’t believe the person asking the question has the ability to control the situation or accurately predict future events, I would simply save everyone. Since this is all hypothetical anyway I see no reason why I’m not capable of this.

[pianistimo]

*torp is secretly superman. 

[thalberg]

Hmm...altruism or individualism.....

A man is given the chance to  visit heaven and hell.  First, he visits hell.  As he approaches, he hears all sorts of groans of agony.  When he looks inside, he sees a huge table piled high with the most delicious food available.  But all the people seated at the table have arms that are eleven feet long with no elbows and they have forks in their hands.  They are groaning because they cannot feed themselves.  The man witnesses the greatness of their suffering, and proceeds to visit heaven.  As he approaches, he hears laughter and delight.  Surprisingly, he arrives to find the exact same situation there was in hell--except in heaven the people were feeding each other.

That was a story a teacher read to us when I was in highschool.  I don't know where it came from.

[Torp]

*torp is secretly superman. 

I believe "was" would be the appropriate conjugation since it is no longer a secret.

Jef

[ramseytheii]

I think the last paragraph from Walter's post sums up Ayn Rand’s overall philosophy very well. My interpretation of her teaching would probably be, “The greatest good will come to mankind through each person’s ultimate expression as an individual.”

"...just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends for the welfare of others - and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.  To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose."

--- Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand

===

Walter Ramsey