Emergency Situations

[brit2006]

I'm not sure I understand Objectivism's position on emergency situations.

1. How is an emergency defined?

2. When there is an emergency, how do you determine how to act?

[The Wrath]

I suppose the definition of "emergency" is subjective.

If you see a man drowning, you will most likely consider it to be an emergency. If you can save him without putting yourself in danger, this would be an appropriate response. If you are a strong swimmer, for instance, you might be able to physically help him.

If he weighs 400 pounds, if you aren't a strong swimmer, or if he is being pulled out to sea in the middle of a thunderstorm and a fierce back-tow, it would be an exceedingly bad idea to physically help him. In this situation, look for some kind of flotation device to throw to him.

[softwareNerd]

In essence, an emergency is a situation that is far outside the context you considered when coming up with your rules of action. It is so far outside the norm, that any rules you might come up to deal with such a situation do not really apply to "real life".

Now that I think of it, then term "emergency" might be a misnomer, because some non-emergency situations have the same characteristics. For instance, one might make a case that Siamese twins need special rules for dealing with one another.

The question, "How do you act in an emergency?" thus becomes "How do you act in a one-off situation that is so unique that no principle can be applied to it?"

[brit2006]

The question, "How do you act in an emergency?" thus becomes "How do you act in a one-off situation that is so unique that no principle can be applied to it?"

Are you saying that you become a pragmatist for the duration of the unique one-off situation?

[softwareNerd]

Are you saying that you become a pragmatist for the duration of the unique one-off situation?

That seems like a decent analogy.

[brit2006]

If the definition of an emergency is subjective and once identified as such requires actions that would not usually be moral (analogous to acting as a pragmatist), how can any rational principle be applied consistantly by a population on the borderline of an emergency situation (ie a situation where there are differing subjective opinions on whether the situation is an emergency or not)?

Edited February 27, 2006 by brit2006

[Capitalism Forever]

I suppose the definition of "emergency" is subjective.

What on earth made you write that? There is no such thing as a subjective definition--not if we are talking about correct definitions. See what consequences your concession to subjectivity has had, and how soon:

If the definition of an emergency is subjective and once identified as such requires actions that would not usually be moral (analogous to acting as a pragmatist), how can any rational principle be applied consistantly by a population on the borderline of an emergency situation (ie a situation where there are differing subjective opinions on whether the situation is an emergency or not)?

An emergency can be objectively defined as an immediate threat to your life. It is exceptional, transient, and undeserved. It applies to an individual, not a population. -- Anything left of brit2006's question?

[softwareNerd]

Anything left of brit2006's question?

Indeed, there is (from his follow-up). He is also looking for a rule to apply in borderline situations. My advice would be, Brit, if you think it's borderline, then apply the usual rules.

[Capitalism Forever]

Indeed, there is (from his follow-up). He is also looking for a rule to apply in borderline situations.

Do you mean the post I quoted ()? If yes, then the borderline issue Brit is talking about arises not out of an individual's judgment but out of differring subjective judgments of the various members of the population--and I have taken care of both "subjective" and "population."

[Spano]

For Ayn Rand's discussion of this topic, read "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).

[brit2006]

How do you act in a one-off situation that is so unique that no principle can be applied to it?

Are emergency situations really so unique that no principle can be applied? Millions of emergency situations have occured over the years.

[softwareNerd]

A million people have not been stranded on a life boat with one other individual, and the only choice being to eat or be eaten. So, you'll need to concretize what you mean when you say "emergency situation". What examples are younthinking of.

[RationalBiker]

If you see a man drowning, you will most likely consider it to be an emergency. If you can save him without putting yourself in danger, this would be an appropriate response. If you are a strong swimmer, for instance, you might be able to physically help him.

Personally, I would be careful in equating "ability = obligation". This is what leads to (what I shall refer to as) the "Spiderman Syndrome" or "with great power comes great responsibility". When Uncle Ben said that, he didn't mean responsibility, he meant OBLIGATION.

There are always emergencies of which people are aware and of which they may have the "ability" to help (for instance financial emergencies such as Katrina). Would it be an "appropriate response" for a rich person to donate money to some hurricane relief fund just because there are (or were) people in emergency situations there where money can help? Once you impose an obligation (or a "should" or an "appropriate response") on them, their life would not be an end to their own needs, their life would the an end to the salvation of others.

[Proverb]

I've always understood an emergency as a life threatening situation in which one does not have the necessary time to explore a rationally tempered course of action.

If it's a situation where there is not sufficient time to decide what to do that is not threatening life or a high value, that's just a hurried choice.

I think that the essential difference in the definition of an emergency is a 'hurried situation' (as above) when one instantly feels that one must do something.

I think the thought of an emergency being subjective comes from the fact that in lieu of not having enough time, one must rely on 'instincts,' for lack of a better word.

[brit2006]

Lets take one example, the Titanic. On that ship there was a scarcity of lifeboats. Are there any principles that should determine who gets a seat on a lifeboat and who is left to drown?

For example one principle that I can think of in the distribution of lifeboats might be "women and children first". Is this a correct principle?

[Proverb]

Very nice example brit. I guess I shouldn't limit the resoruse that creates an emergency situation to simply 'time.' The Titanic sank very slowly but is still an example of an emergency situation because of the lack of lifeboats, not time.

[Capitalism Forever]

For example one principle that I can think of in the distribution of lifeboats might be "women and children first". Is this a correct principle?

If the successful operation of the lifeboats required strong, grown-up men, putting only women and children on a lifeboat would be a disastrous policy. On the other hand, if the lifeboats could easily be driven by women, but they were damaged and as a result could only carry lighter loads, you would prefer to put thin women and children on them.

As you can see, you have to consider the concrete circumstances; you cannot rely on principles in cases like this.

[RationalBiker]

I think the thought of an emergency being subjective comes from the fact that in lieu of not having enough time, one must rely on 'instincts,' for lack of a better word.

As someone who does (and has a lot in the past) deal with emergency situations, with training and experience there is no need to assume that quick thinking or lightning quick reactions need be subjective. There are plenty of folks who can size up a multitude of objective facts in an amazingly short period of time and derive a proper objective response. For some people it may be a subjective reaction, but it doesn't have to be. Another way of saying this would be; "enough time" is a relative term from one individual to the next.

A prime example of the type of training police go through to address this is the "shoot / don't shoot" scenarios in kill houses and Firearms Training Simulators. By far not the real thing, but you would be surprised at how some people crack and/or perform poorly even under training situations. Other folks perform equally well in training simulations as they do in real life.

[JMeganSnow]

I'd just like to point out that it is NOT an emergency situation if it isn't threatening YOUR life in some concrete way.

A drowning man is not a threat to your life and doesn't constitute an emergency situation even though, were you to choose to save him, the action would necessarily be undertaken quickly. You still have to choose what response is required based on your values, etc., and you have the leisure to do it. (You don't have the leisure to sit around and ponder the question for hours, but you do have the leisure to make a decision and act on it.)

However, if someone pulls a gun on you, THAT may properly constitute an emergency, in which case the time for pondering is long over: the only possible action is to remove the threat as quickly and effectively as possible, THEN worry about things like hierarchy of values, etc.

[softwareNerd]

I guess the point of Brit's example is that one finds oneself in a situation where one must choose between acting to preserve one's life and acting to preserve someone else's life. When one is forced to make such a choice, in a context where the non-sacrificial pursuit of life is not possible to all the humans involved, how ought one act?

[Spano]

There is another example of the lifeboat scenario, albeit much more bizarre, that was mentioned in my friend's college philosophy class. In this example, there are four people in four closed rooms with open ceilings, and a live grenade tossed in. Your choice is to let the grenade explode and die, or toss it over the wall into the next room. I believe the example was used to try to show the inherent conflict between people.

The problem with situations where your survival comes at the expense of another's survival is that this is a context unlike normal life. A useful system of ethics applies to normal situations where survival is possible to all involved. Yet those who offer up lifeboat scenarios attempt to prove that they somehow refute the ethics of normal situations. Just because you might have to toss the grenade over the wall in some bizarre example does not mean that acting in one's self interest is, in normal contexts, evil or impossible.

Edit-

To answer softwareNerd's question, I think in such a situation the issue is not how one ought to act, but how one must act. If you want to survive in my example, you MUST toss the grenade and kill somebody else. They similarly must do the same to you. But this answer is really of no value - we are rarely, if ever, in such situations, and when we are, we are left with only one viable choice. In normal life, we have many viable choices, and our survival has nothing to do with harming others.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Spano

[brit2006]

If the successful operation of the lifeboats required strong, grown-up men, putting only women and children on a lifeboat would be a disastrous policy. On the other hand, if the lifeboats could easily be driven by women, but they were damaged and as a result could only carry lighter loads, you would prefer to put thin women and children on them.

As you can see, you have to consider the concrete circumstances; you cannot rely on principles in cases like this.

What if the lifeboats are all in perfect condition and are easily driven?

I guess the point of Brit's example is that one finds oneself in a situation where one must choose between acting to preserve one's life and acting to preserve someone else's life. When one is forced to make such a choice, in a context where the non-sacrificial pursuit of life is not possible to all the humans involved, how ought one act?

Exactly. This is what I am trying to figure out.

To answer softwareNerd's question, I think in such a situation the issue is not how one ought to act, but how one must act. If you want to survive in my example, you MUST toss the grenade and kill somebody else. They similarly must do the same to you. But this answer is really of no value - we are rarely, if ever, in such situations, and when we are, we are left with only one viable choice. In normal life, we have many viable choices, and our survival has nothing to do with harming others.

While such situations are rare for any one individual they do happen all the time. Lets stick with the Titanic example - is the only rational option to take the pragmatic approach and kill anyone who tries to take your lifeboat seat, or is there some other principle that could be followed (such as women and children first)?

[Proverb]

Brit I think the search for a principle to act on in the Titanic situation or in anything like it is largely useless. I say that because every such situation may differ in severity or urgency and the 'principle' one chooses to act by is just as amorphous. I'm not saying that the actions are subjective just that in the context of emergency situations an overall 'principle' may not exist.

When any situation comes down to 'My life, or his' I think it's safe to say one would do everything one can to save one's own life. Does that mean that if I were on the titanic i would viciously attack anyone who tried to take my seat? No, because I would realize that all the other people around me are striving to save their own lives and If I engage in vicious behavior I would in effect be endorsing it which may lead to my own death at the hands of others; as it may be in the titanic situation.

This is an example of how if you reduce 'titanic' to a ten-people-one-five-person-raft simplistic scenario you are in effect dropping the context of what may be most important in deciding a course of action. It's not a matter of principle in these situations as it may be in situations in the course of everyday life. To reduce emergency situations to their essential 'choices' (your life or mine) is to drop the context of what makes it an emergency in the first place.

[brit2006]

What I am trying to get at is this:

There are 2 principles one could follow in a Titanic situation. Either pragmatism (every man for himself which would involve lots of fighting and throwing people overboard), or altruism (accept that you are going to lose your life and sacrifice it for someone elses life).

Which is it? Pick one. No tip-toeing around the subject please!

[gags]

Hasn't it already been stated that there is no suitable answer to these kinds of hypotheticals? One would need a great deal more information to make any kind of judgement about how to proceed. Even then, the point about emergency situations is that they don't establish a basis for moral principles. They are not situations one encounters on a regular basis and they don't lay the ground work for a system of morality used to guide our daily lives.