Ok, so here's another rigged, extreme, impossible hypothetical

[Vital Signs]

I didn't make it up. Someone's attempting to use it to disprove the idea of rational self-interest.

Alternatively, you could turn it around on him. I presume he's advocating altruism and thinks that sacrificing his life for the other man is the right thing to do, so ask him what happens if, after he nobly offers to lay down his own life, the other man says, "Oh good, that saves me the struggle of murdering you! Let's make it quick: you're wasting my oxygen."

Is self-sacrifice still the virtuous choice?

-If he says yes, you get to point out that altruism punishes the good (by its own standards), and rewards the evil (those who violate those standards). How is man to remain good, and what kind of world will result when evil is rewarded and virtue punished, when the noble have died so murderers may live?

-If he says no, then his ethics apparently also lead to a duel to the death, so he cannot criticize rational self-interest for doing the same in this contrived scenario.

-If he says altruism only applies when the other person is altruistic too, then you get to say that rational self-interest only applies in situations that don't rule out reason (you can't think your way out of it, you can't strike a deal, it's kill or be killed: what do you do?)

So much for lifeboat scenarios.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Vital Signs

[FeatherFall]

Here is a youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et9-MG3HviMr with which I agree.

A transcript of the video is available at McKeever's Blog.

[B is B]

I suppose if something like this happened it would be covered under the ethics of emergencies, not normal ethics. But what end does it serve to contemplate such an unlikely scenario? What does it have to do with real life?

However, you have to ask yourself this--what good is having a particular philosophy if it doesn't have application during an emergency? I think you should answer his question instead of evading it.

[RationalBiker]

However, you have to ask yourself this--what good is having a particular philosophy if it doesn't have application during an emergency? I think you should answer his question instead of evading it.

In a previous post you claim that you have a deep understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism. In that post, as in this one, you increasingly cast doubt on that claim.

First, the whole of the philosophy is not "thrown out" in an emergency situation, just the moral evaluation of the actions one must take to survive the emergency situation. A deep understanding of Objectivism could (or even would) help a person in an emergency situation long before he gets into such situation by allowing him to recognize the need to be as prepared as possible for such emergency in advance. In an emergency situation, one is looking at the alternatives 'do X or die'. In such cases, NO philosophy helps you, only X helps you.

But the main idea is that typically one spends the vast majority of their life NOT in emergency situations, and that is where one needs to invest most in a guide on how to live one's life, how to make decisions on a day to day basis that further and fulfill one's existence.