Borderline Selfishness Case Scenario

[iago]

Hello fellow objectivists,

I've been reading the Virtue of Selfishness for the past days and it really got me thinking about objectivist ethics applied to everyday life...

I hate altruism as much as you guys when it comes to governments enslaving people to each other and imposing duties. I also agree that relationships should be based on value, not on self-sacrifice... But this borderline case got me thinking if in some cases it is not good to have a "voluntary sense of duty" (is the term contradictory?) toward preserving other people's lives...

Here is the case:

You are a very wealthy man who made hundreds of millions of dollars with your own mind. You live in a small town called Alpha, which is nearly 50 minutes from the stock exchange in Beta City and 2 hours from the nearest hospital which is also in Beta City.

One day you wake up 8:00am in the morning with the phone ringing... It's your investment adviser and he has just found out in advance that the stock market is about to crash, and if you don't get there before 9:00am you are gonna lose 10 million dollars... You desperately get everything you need and leave the house at 8:05am, in the exact time to get there before losing you money.

You are driving across a very hot desert on a road toward Beta City... You are driving as fast as you can and you are happy to know that you are gonna make it in 40 minutes, 15 minutes before losing 10 million dollars of your own money... Suddenly you see a man lying down beside the road, and as you get close you can see that he was severely bitten by a wolf and cannot walk. The man is bleeding profusely and is certainly going to die if he is not taken to a hospital... You stop the car and you step out of it right beside him, and as you look around you can see that the road is completely empty, it's just you and him.

You've always been a very selfish man and always despised self-sacrifice... This man has no value at all to you and you know you do have the right to save the money you worked for... You are about to enter the car and leave him to die on the desert... Yet you stop and you surprisingly notice that you can't do it... You feel that you are gonna suffer a very painful guilt if you let this man die when you could have saved him... Now you are standing there and the time is running fast with the man desperately looking at you... If you wait too long you are neither going to save him or your money... What do you do?

In this scenario saving the man would be an evident self-sacrifice because he has no value to you at all... Yet something makes me think that it would be the right thing to do...

Edited August 16, 2008 by iago

[athena glaukopis]

Can't I go to the stock exchange and call the guy an ambulance from my car phone?

[iago]

Can't I go to the stock exchange and call the guy an ambulance from my car phone?

Of course not, then you'd be avoiding the point of the story... Suppose you didn't have a phone, or that it was in the time of the Atlas Shrugged... lol

[Grant]

Either way I'd go save my $10 million and hope that someone who WASN'T about to lose that kind of money was about to drive by.

Or should we assume we're also the only 2 people on earth as well?

[athena glaukopis]

Well then let the poor f*ker die, I have 10 mil on the line!!

Edited August 18, 2008 by Capitalism Forever

[DavidOdden]

I kind of hate unrealistic scenarios because they require you to ignore reality while trying to focus on reality. I mean, you find out in advance that the stock market is gonna crash in 55 minutes? Nicholas Cage was in that movie, wasn't he. And what happened to the interwebs? Can't the guy just do the sale online?

But anyhow, perhaps we could reduce this to the question of risking losing 5% of your net financial worth by adding a few minutes to the trip. I would not feel any obligation to save this stranger. I suspect I would stop, stick him in the car, and drive a whole lot faster.

[softwareNerd]

Basically, you're asking: would you pay $10 million dollars to save a stranger's life. Correct?

The particular example itself is far-fetched. Is it supposed to be a puzzler? I ask, because you placed both the hospital and the stock exchange in beta city. So, no matter what the guy chooses, he still heads to beta city. That means he can throw the guy in his car, head to beta city --- going faster than he normally would. Once he's in beta city, a guy who's worth $100 million will probably figure out a creative way to have someone -- an assistant, a cabbie, an ambulance, or a cop -- take the passenger to the hospital.

You say you're reading V-of-S. Have you read chapter-3: "Ethics of Emergencies".

[athena glaukopis]

In this scenario saving the man would be an evident self-sacrifice because he has no value to you at all... Yet something makes me think that it would be the right thing to do...

Ok all joking aside, and keeping in mind the fact that hyper-specific scenarios like this are not the standards by which someone constructs a system of ethics, by what standard (besides your 'feelings') "would it be the right thing to do"

Edited August 16, 2008 by athena glaukopis

[Jake]

These two statements seem to be contradictory:

This man has no value at all to you...

You feel that you are gonna suffer a very painful guilt if you let this man die when you could have saved him...

I don't see how you can feel any negative emotion(s) related to his possible death, unless you value him at least a little. If you are assuming an altruistic or duty-minded, non-Objectivist ethic, then you would value him as a means to accomplish your altruistic goals. If you truly don't value him at all, you won't feel any guilt - go after your moolah.

[iago]

Basically, you're asking: would you pay $10 million dollars to save a stranger's life. Correct?

The number is kind of random... If it were all the money you had it would certainly be immoral, because you'd sacrifice your life completely for this guy... But suppose it were 100 dollars, this money is still worth more to you than this guy's life, isn't it?

Now, shouldn't human life have some sort of intrinsic value? Maybe if your life is taken care of, wouldn't it be a virtue to help others as long as you don't have to sacrifice yourself too much, and as long as nobody is imposing it on you? It's wrong for somebody impose duties on you to help other people, but wouldn't there be any virtue at all in placing some intrinsic value on other human's lives and helping to preserve them, even if it were a small sacrifice of your time and money?

I haven't read the chapter 3 of VoF yet, maybe the answer will be there...

Edited August 16, 2008 by iago

[kanjmai]

Remember what Ayn Rand talks about in the “Ethics of Emergencies”. Individuals, unless in the face of proof that they are worthless, represent a potential value. We should regard all individuals as innocent until proven guilty, all representing a potential value.

Assuming your only options were losing ten million dollars or saving a man’s life, you would have to consider the consequences of each choice in regards to your fundamental goal. Personally, I would think given the facts of the scenario you provided, it would be best if I saved the man’s life.

Considering that I have a financial cache of “hundreds of millions of dollars”, a loss of ten million dollars, while great, is something that I could get over. It won’t have a crippling effect on my life. On the other hand, by saving a man’s life, I can gain a different type of value through his friendship.

Now, shouldn't human life have some sort of intrinsic value?

The Objectivist Ethics denies the existence of any intrinsic value.

[iago]

Considering that I have a financial cache of “hundreds of millions of dollars”, a loss of ten million dollars, while great, is something that I could get over. It won’t have a crippling effect on my life. On the other hand, by saving a man’s life, I can gain a different type of value through his friendship.

Great answer, thanks!

[softwareNerd]

Great answer, thanks!

Be careful that you do not grab onto this idea (I gave $10 million, but gained a friend) as a rationalization. After all, how likely is it that Mr. Stockmarket will find Mr. Wolf to be great friend material, let alone $10 million worth? I don't think Mr. Stockmarket will think: "Hmm! Maybe I can make a friend." No, if he's a normal guy, he will think: "This is an emergency and I happen to be the one on the spot. I would like to do what I can to help another person." It is this -- rather than the possibility of friendship -- that he will have to weigh against the cost to him.

[iago]

I would like to do what I can to help another person." It is this -- rather than the possibility of friendship -- that he will have to weigh against the cost to him.

Wouldn't that be a form of self-imposed duty then?

[fletch]

Wouldn't that be a form of self-imposed duty then?

It would be a value judgement, like all choices are.

[Rearden_Steel]

How does he know the guy is going to die? Is he a doctor as well as a trader? If the man is bleeding from one area so profusely could he not tie a tourniquet over the wound (seeing how he such a medical expert). How would they know the exact minute the market was going to crash? Why can’t he sell his stock over the phone or on the internet. Seeing how the only way you could sell securities in this universe is by showing up at the exchange (no wonder the markets crashing) and selling it in person why would such a brilliant trader live so far from the exchange? Why does the people in your story have such a grasp on the future?

These hypothetical’s are pointless because what your really asking is “lets assume for a minute that reality and logic doesn’t exist, then try and solve something logically with a bearing on reality. Of course this is impossible. Such situations have no bearing on reality and are there for useless.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Rearden_Steel

[DavidOdden]

Wouldn't that be a form of self-imposed duty then?

I have a bunch of real-world possibilities for you to consider:

1: You're driving west looking for a parking spot on the left side of the road; you stop and signal to turn into the spot (a left turn -- you have to wait for oncoming traffic). Another car comes along 10 seconds later going east, before you make the turn, and nabs the spot with a quick right before you can. His choice was the proper choice, right?

2: You are leaving a store, which doesn't have automatic doors, and 4 seconds behind you is a little old lady in a walker. You have the choice of pausing for 10 more seconds waiting for her to get through the door, or you can let the door close and save yourself 10 seconds. Close the door, right?

3: There is an accident on the freeway, causing bumper-to-bumper traffic. Some guy to your left is trying to exit; if you let him out, it could delay you another minute, so you keep your nose to the next guy's tail, right?

4: A man stumbles and falls onto a window, cutting himself severely. You could try to give assistance, but that might get you dirty and you have other things to do, so you keep walking.

5: A baby swallows a penny and it gets stuck in his throat, and he starts choking. You could reach over and perform a quick Heimlich maneuver, but you might get spit on you and anyhow it takes effort which you don't owe anyone. So you let the baby suffocate, right?

In each case, to help the other guy, you have to spend something, maybe time, maybe a parking spot, maybe a bit of cleanup. Plain and simple civility and ordinary compassion are not moral sins. There is nothing wrong with helping a stranger in need, even if it costs you something. The wrong comes from thinking that you have a duty to sacrifice for other people, that their interests always come before yours. What you have to do in this scenario is figure out what is the higher value -- what exactly is best for your life. If you value living in a society where ordinary civility and compassionate voluntary helpfulness are practiced, then you can act one way. The investment is, hold the door for the little old lady today and in 10 years it will be your own crippled mother who benefits from the kindness of a stranger. (This is not an FDIC-insured investment). If your highest value is accumulating and keeping as much cash as you can get, you have to act another way. In that case, you would not have even stopped in the first place.

[Alfa]

I would, in the utmost selfish manner, have saved the mans life even if it was my last money.

I think the dilemma stems from a maelvolent universe premise. Either you have to sacrifice compassion and the value of human life or you have to sacrifice wealth. One cannot live under such premises where the keeping of one value is the sacrifice of another. Think instead of what made the aquisition of such wealth possible in the first place - is it not by rejecting the very premise on which this dilemma is built?

For me, I see two options for this scenario:

The first one would be to act out of fear of losing a major value to me - money. I would also like to think this is the option for a man with poor imagination, who cannot see new possibilities lying in front of him. Not likely I would have 10 million $ if that was the kind of man I was.

So the second option would actually be to pursue a new value, and I would kick his butt if the man dies on me. If I have made a fortune once I can make it twice, so the worst thing that could happen is that I would have to start all over again - which could maybe even be worth the experience alone. More likely though you would see me on the front page of every newspaper in the country; "Millionare gave up his fortune saving a wounded man!". But I would not be the altruistic "hero" that people are used to, imagine how many peoples attention I would get explaining that my motives were purely selfish. I bet it would atleast give me my five minutes of fame. Now imagine how many doors this would open for me so that I could make even more money. I would soon be richer than I was before and if the man I saved had any quality whatsoever I could take him under my wing, train him and make him a rich man too. With a little time he could pay me back my 10 million $ with interest.

In the first scenario then I would sacrifice my compassion and love for human life, and the huge potential value it has. It would only make me a victim of fear, poor self confidence and lack of vision. In the second scenario I act as a man in pursuit of a value and achievment, with the confidence of my abilities and trusting my vision of the world as a benevolent place full of new possibilities.

[Clawg]

I'll ask him if his life is worth 10mio $.

[agrippa1]

All of these scenarios are irrelevant. The choice, as is constantly pointed out here, is a value judgment by the person being asked to consider the hypothetical, and no one else.

You have a moral duty to save the man's life if the consequences of saving his life has more value to you than the loss you will incur in so doing.

The relevant question is this:

A very wealthy man drives past a man bleeding to death on the side of the road, choosing instead to rush to a nearby town to save $10 million from an impending market crash. The injured man dies from his injuries. The wealthy man is brought to trial for letting the injured man die. You are on the jury.

Do you find the wealthy man guilty?

[Grant]

All of these scenarios are irrelevant. The choice, as is constantly pointed out here, is a value judgment by the person being asked to consider the hypothetical, and no one else.

You have a moral duty to save the man's life if the consequences of saving his life has more value to you than the loss you will incur in so doing.

The relevant question is this:

A very wealthy man drives past a man bleeding to death on the side of the road, choosing instead to rush to a nearby town to save $10 million from an impending market crash. The injured man dies from his injuries. The wealthy man is brought to trial for letting the injured man die. You are on the jury.

Do you find the wealthy man guilty?

Is that a rhetorical question? If it isn't, then absolutely not. You aren't morally obligated to help each and every injured person you encounter.

By that principle, a doctor should not be allowed to turn away patients (customers) and must provide medical care to each and every person.

Similar case: man A and man B are in a fight. A is beating B senseless and it may lead to B's eventual death.. Am I obligated to step in to help B? No. If by my judgement, I consider B to be innocent and know that I can help him without really risking my own life, I may step in. But notice that I've exercised judgement according to my own values. If someone else chooses not to step in, you can't send that individual to jail for having values that differ to mine.

[Alfa]

All of these scenarios are irrelevant. The choice, as is constantly pointed out here, is a value judgment by the person being asked to consider the hypothetical, and no one else.

But then you would be valuing actions without considering the consequences.

You have a moral duty to save the man's life if the consequences of saving his life has more value to you than the loss you will incur in so doing.

It's not a duty to be selfish. Duty is an anti-concept which states a moral necessity to act a certain way, disregarding reason and any selfish motives.

Do you find the wealthy man guilty?

No.

[DavidOdden]

A very wealthy man drives past a man bleeding to death on the side of the road, choosing instead to rush to a nearby town to save $10 million from an impending market crash. The injured man dies from his injuries. The wealthy man is brought to trial for letting the injured man die. You are on the jury.

I would presumably be in Minnesota where they have such a law glued on to their Good Samaritan law. I would have to vote for acquittal on two grounds. I assume, of course, the wealth man called a hospital to notify them of the accident. The law states you "shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person." My understanding of danger and peril are that the concepts do not just refer to grave bodily injury, and loss of $10 megabux is a significant threat. It would be unreasonable to require the destruction of that much wealth, so acting so as to destroy that wealth in order to save the person is unreasonable. Additionally, the law states that "Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel", thus his calling the hospital addresses the statutory obligation.

[agrippa1]

But then you would be valuing actions without considering the consequences.

No, you would be valuing actions by considering the consequences. I agree with the rest, though.

The implication of the hypotheticals is that if we can agree that a certain action is morally the right thing to do, then we have the basis for a law to force people do so. Clearly that is not the case, and just as clearly, the hypotheticals are irrelevant as means of reaching a rationally "correct" answer.

I'm guessing that most people here would be against so-called "good samaritan" laws?

[Pokarrin]

I thought "good samaritan" laws were designed to prevent someone from being sued for causing harm while making a reasonable attempt to help someone in peril?