TLD

You're talking in non-essentials. Rights can only apply to humans since morality is only needed for humans to survive. Humans have to think to make choices in life to survive; animals act on instinct. So you cannot talk in terms of animals "deserving" to exist. Furthermore, it would be impractical to protect them and for no one to eat them; the ramifications would be enormous. E.g. we would be overrun with them, disease would spread, etc.

To DA earlier: you tend toward altruism: you would give up your life to avoid doing something that would be immoral in a rational situation. You mix moral situations with immoral ones - fallacy of false comparison. I don't appreciate your assumption that I may choose to avoid such discussion because it is "too difficult." Eioul answered that comment. In your last post, you started by softening your argument: of course morality is a guide to action.... But you are ignoring the fact that the "lifeboat" situation does not contain of choice of action - there can be no guide! Further, you then change the scenario to talk about killing someone of high value to you; that has never been the issue. It is this changing and rehashing of issues and ignoring many times what has been said to demonstrate the difference in our views that makes me bow out of this absurd path of conversation. Good luck Eioul.

Then you die! If it's me or you, it's going to be me - to live the rest of my life as an Obj.ist. Why should I sacrifice my life for you? (And don't change the context; we're only talking about situations without rational choice.) (I really don't know why do I keep trying. ☺☺☺)

Your question shows that you do not, in fact, understand my position. Read the blog. I came back because of your new question, but not to rehash everything from before.

You are comparing an amoral question with a moral one. "No" to the last question of course. Sorry, you'll just have to read the blog if you don't know the difference.

You have misunderstood and virtually ignored previous notes re "emergency", what is required for an issue to be moral, etc. Your position is not "credible." I truly hope Eiuol stops the exercise very soon.

You are now wasting you time. SL is either playing devil's advocate or not able to see the principle involved. E.g. I pointed out several days ago what you just said re EOEmergencies; he does not want to integrate what has already been posted.

You are ignoring the context in which his statement was made. Look back through this blog: your last question has been answered multiple times. I think it is time to stop this discussion - not to cut you off, but because it is going nowhere...full circle multiple times.

Your example demonstrated my point. And your last statement does the same. "Cause death" is out of context. The main point seems lost to you.

DA, you did not answer Eiuol - and you can't because you are ignoring the principle here. Applying morality to an amoral situation simply creates a conflict noted by him. You just have to accept that there are some potential situations - generally never occurring in our lifetime - where there is no rational choice to be made if you are to live after such a situation occurs.

Exactly!

Desire to live - period. Call it a choice if you choose, but it is the only choice, thus not a moral one. It would appear that this blog has reached an end - gone full circle more than once. But interesting.

"No choice" meaning reasonable choice - i.e. excluding dying. You know what I am saying. Would I steal or kick another (not a loved one) out of a boat if I had to in order to live - in the context we have been discussing, yes. Would I be morally wrong? No.

I certainly would not mis-define such terms. Some in this blog have confused "emergency" with "lifeboat" situations; i.e. emergencies where choices are still available and others where one's life depends on acting irrationally according to obj. principles. And we need to distinguish between - in the latter case - situations one has put himself into via wrong choices and not. When in a situation without choice and providing no choice, a rational person may need to steal from another while not liking to do so. He would be aware of doing so and would not need to evade or re-define "theft."

SL asked: My question to you now is what do you THINK, an Objectivist should do according to the morality of RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST? That's the question one can't ask in this context. That's the point of this blog.

DA: you are now out of context. The "lifeboat" situation we have been discussing is not what AR is talking about in "Ethics of Emergencies." That's all I have to say.

No, it does not excuse him; moral principles simply don't apply. A "better" man cannot simply make an emergency become a non-emergency (if that is what you were implying). If a rational man is forced to do something in emergency that he would not do otherwise, then there is no one better who can create a rational choice of actions. You are too uncomfortable with the ideas being presented here. Understand the principle and don't attempt to create a false scenario.

We have gone full circle here. It has been sufficiently shown that morality does not deal with "lifeboat" situations. With your belief, you are dead in the lifeboat.

A Habit is a "regular tendency or practice." You are certainly conscious of them - or should be. But they are not necessarily a result of integrated factual data. They result from automatizing certain processes - which, if done objectively, would be rational subconscious responses. But even the good "habits" or rational responses don't apply in the "lifeboat" ex. E.g. you don't have a "habit" of harming others but in the lifeboat you may have to.

We don't act on habits, we act on principles - whether conscious of them or not. No, morality still applies to those who are dying. It is just that in "lifeboats", those principles do not apply. We are simply in survival mode.

DA: Morality can't be as important...if in fact it is irrelevant in "lifeboats". If you hold objectivist principles, our moral code simply can't apply in such situations. There is no "muscle memory" that we are "accustomed to" - that's ridiculous. If you refrain from aggression, you would sacrifice yourself. But if you hold subjectivist principles where feelings trump reason, then anything goes. Yes, your line of reasoning is at odds with Obj.ism.

DA: where do you get that distinction or conclusion? Ethics and morality have been defined above. It's never "whatever it takes" in moral issues. That's why the "lifeboat" situation is not a moral one.

You're making an incorrect distinction. Ethics is a branch of philosophy dealing with defining a code of morality. Morality is the code that guides man's choices and actions.

Ethics does not care how many people are involved. But this blog has fully addressed emergency situations.