The Objectivist Ethics

[Eamon Arasbard]

 

Imagine you're visiting a wayward cousin. You go out with him and a few of his buddies, and at some point in the evening they think it will be fun to do something destructive: something that goes beyond a relatively "low-cost-to-others" prank. You realize the owner will be really upset at the cost to him. Do you throw yourself happily into cooperating with these buddies, caring less about the unknown owner?

 

If you ditch them and go home, or if you go along, but only  grudgingly... then why? Is it an imagine "cooperation" with the owner rather than with these folk? If so, what explains this differential in cooperation?

 

I would definitely opt out in that case, because I don't want to harm others, even a stranger.

 

Harming the owner of the restaurant would be undermining the general ability of human beings to cooperate, and harming my own interest in living in a peaceful and benevolent society. Also, the owner might not want me to come back to that restaurant, I might end up going to jail if it's a criminal action, and even if it's not, I'll still feel ashamed when I find myself in the company of more rational individuals (Or even a friend who owns a business and had someone do something equally damaging to him) and feel the need to hide having been part of this prank. And that, if nothing else, would make me feel uncomfortable around that person, because I have to hide that part of myself and that makes the relationship feel less intimate and wholesome.