brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokarrin Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 To begin with, whether or not someone will find out about it ought to be irrelevant; you have no responsibility to do so. If we're assuming minimal risk or loss to myself, I absolutely would save this Speaker Who Shall Remain Nameless, if for no other reason than that it might lead to a conversation between us in which I could try to influence the SWSRN somewhat, though I am well aware of the probable futility of such action. Also, the martyr phenomenon should be considered; what if, in a fit of emotion, a Speaker worse than the SWSRN were appointed, and a congressperson worse than the previous one were elected to fill the vacant seat? That would be a net loss for all involved. As a matter of principle, it is better to save a life than allow a death, so long as the risk to oneself is minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Did the example assume some degree of risk to the person doing the saving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I believe the risk was minimal. For the few who said they would not save the SWSRN, the argument was that nobody would know, and that you know this person to be evil, to be actively and knowingly working to violate your rights. If you say you would save them, then we need to figure out where the line is drawn between saving a person who legislates your rights away and saving a person who you know to be a murderer - unless you would also save the murderer. Where is the line draw, if at all? Edited March 23, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I wouldn't go near any drowning gov't official: the liability would be horrendous. Even assuming nothing else went wrong, you'd instantly be thrust into the status of a public figure. No, this is why they pay their vast arrays of hangers-on. One of THEM can do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I wouldn't go near any drowning gov't official: the liability would be horrendous. Even assuming nothing else went wrong, you'd instantly be thrust into the status of a public figure. As I specified, this is assuming that nobody would know if you didn't save them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokarrin Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 If you say you would save them, then we need to figure out where the line is drawn between saving a person who legislates your rights away and saving a person who you know to be a murderer - unless you would also save the murderer. Where is the line draw, if at all? Now you're dropping the context. The line is drawn according to my best judgment in each situation as to what best serves my own self-interest. I might very well save someone I knew to be a convicted murderer if he had served his sentence and learned to live as a productive member of society (maybe he read Atlas Shrugged in prison). If he just finished killing someone and I saw him slip, bumb his head, and fall unconscious into a pool, I would probably just shrug and call the police. If he killed someone important to me, I might throw a rock at him just to be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils_Advocate Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists. Assuming it isn't the present speaker I would, AMRTM (assuming minimal risk to myself), just because they are still humans who should live. As terrible as some of them may be, I don't like the thought of anyone dying, especially not if I could save them. If it were the present speaker - I'd save them, merely because that gives me a window of opportunity to box her up and deport her to North Korea, where she belongs (j/k, j/k). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 no. 'nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would save her. She has not murdered anyone, she is not guilty of something that would sentence her to death and if it's of little effort to me, then I would preserve human life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Kinnen Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I'd save her, I don't think saving her would be a substantial risk to me (I'm a good swimmer). I wouldn't necessarily save someone I knew to be a murderer. In order to just let someone die I would have to know they were evil with the same sense of concreteness that I hold the belief that water is wet. Or there would have to be substantial risk to my person. Edited March 23, 2009 by Fred Kinnen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'd save her, I don't think saving her would be a substantial risk to me (I'm a good swimmer). I wouldn't necessarily save a someone I knew to be a murderer. In order to just let someone die I would have to know they were evil with the same sense of concreteness that I can see the water is wet. Or there would have to be substantial risk to my person. So in what sense is the evil of said Speaker less concrete than the evil of someone you know to be on the most wanted list for murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Kinnen Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Well I don't keep track of the most wanted list. So if someone on that list were drowning and I didn't think saving them would be a substantial risk to me, then I would save them. In this case I wouldn't hold them to be evil at all ( because I wouldn't recognize them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rearden_Steel Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would save her. She has not murdered anyone, You haven't seen what I pay in taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 As I specified, this is assuming that nobody would know if you didn't save them. I'm more worried that people would know if I DID. As far as I'm concerned, "no one will know if you DON'T save them" is of no consideration because I wouldn't save someone's life to *avoid* going to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists. Do not kill. There is no obligation to rescue. Make a judgement. For me, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would, again, in the interest of preserving life. I would only refuse to save someone I have personal knowledge of their guilt in a grievous wrongdoing, like murder, assault, or rape. A Congresscritter, however despicable, just doesn't fall into this category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would, again, in the interest of preserving life. I would only refuse to save someone I have personal knowledge of their guilt in a grievous wrongdoing, like murder, assault, or rape. A Congresscritter, however despicable, just doesn't fall into this category. So is it that the Speaker is not guilty of anything, or that you think there are shades of gray to good and evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew1776 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would not save the SWSRN. Politicians perpetrate crimes, such as theft and slavery, on a grand scale. There is no way to prevent these crimes or punish the perpetrators (short of a major philosophical shift for a majority of people). Given the seemingly once in a lifetime opportunity to have such a fiend brought to natural justice I would gladly allow nature to take it's course. I think the biggest question is what is the most suitable punishment for politicians? While they may not kill anyone (directly) they use force to enslave millions of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Here's a related ethical conundrum: If someone gave you a completely unlikely lifeboat scenario, would you take the time to respond out of politeness, or simply pretend you didn't hear him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Here's a related ethical conundrum: If someone gave you a completely unlikely lifeboat scenario, would you take the time to respond out of politeness, or simply pretend you didn't hear him? What if nazis had your parents, and were threatening to kill them? Would you save her then? Edited March 23, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soth Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 That depends. If I call out for superman, would he come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Here's a related ethical conundrum: If someone gave you a completely unlikely lifeboat scenario, would you take the time to respond out of politeness, or simply pretend you didn't hear him? I see it simply as an attempt to determine if there is consistency in Objectivist thought. Based on the replies so far, there isn't. Does that point to a deeper contradiction, or do we simply need to talk it out more? Certainly the response isn't to laugh it off, is it? If so, why? Edited March 23, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I see it simply as an attempt to determine if there is consistency in Objectivist thought. Based on the replies so far, there isn't. Does that point to a deeper contradiction, or do we simply need to talk it out more? Certainly the response isn't to laugh it off, is it? If so, why? Why should you expect all Oists, or rational people, or whatever subset you choose to agree? We all have different value hierarchies. It's fine for people to make different choices. Now, obviously, there are SOME things it would be rather unusual and probably wrong for an Oist to disagree about, such as whether reality exists or we use reason to know it, or whether we should live on principle. But in individual circumstances, the way we apply those principles is bound to vary from person to person. Now, as to your previous question, I accept neither. Of course politicians bear guilt for their actions. And no, there are not "shades of gray" when it comes to good and evil, but there are "shades of gray" people. I hope you see the distinction I'm making. The vast majority of people in the world are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. There are certain acts, of a particular nature, that demonstrate much more flagrant and elemental disrespect for the well-being of others, such that there is no doubt this person will never live as a person, only as a beast. I'm sorry but I just don't see "Speaker of the House" in that category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Please realize I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here. I agree with you. So long as I believe there is still an opportunity to convince them of the faults in their ways, I'll save them. For a wanted serial killer, I think they are beyond convincing. Edited March 23, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.