DrSammyD Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 I've been trying to find an argument that goes straight from acting out of self-interest, to not killing and eating someone if stranded on a desert island, or lifeboat. I watched video by Paul McKeever, but I couldn't quite make sense of the Objectivism part. P.S. I realize some of you may recognize me from a few months ago with disdain, and I do apologizes for the disrespectful way I acted earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 I've been trying to find an argument that goes straight from acting out of self-interest, to not killing and eating someone if stranded on a desert island, or lifeboat.Is it fair to assume that you understand the link as far as life is concerned, and are only perplexed about the fictional/extreme-hypotheticals now? Or, are you also asking about the link in normal, day to day situations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Because it is rational self-interest in Objectivism. You cannot take the lives of others without negating your own right to life. All rights are made to keep the ability to live life freely. One's life is one's property alone and no one else may justly dispose of it. Rights are absolutes not to be altered by emergencies. Additionally I would figure on a desert island two minds would be better than one for survival as long as there are any resources to use. Cannibalism is a temporary solution at best and does little to benefit your life except in the most obscure circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 What would you do for food once you eat your companion? Survival is easier when one has more hands to accomplish the tasks that will allow one to live. In a desert island scenario, isolation and, not to mention guilt over having taken a life and having eaten another human being would likely drive you insane, unless you were a sociopath and insane to begin with. Tasks such as shelter, maintaining a fire, securing water, gathering food, etc., are not easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrSammyD Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Is it fair to assume that you understand the link as far as life is concerned, and are only perplexed about the fictional/extreme-hypotheticals now? Or, are you also asking about the link in normal, day to day situations? Yes, I'm fully on board with rational self-interest in normal day to day situations. Because it is rational self-interest in Objectivism. You cannot take the lives of others without negating your own right to life. All rights are made to keep the ability to live life freely. One's life is one's property alone and no one else may justly dispose of it. Rights are absolutes not to be altered by emergencies. Additionally I would figure on a desert island two minds would be better than one for survival as long as there are any resources to use. Cannibalism is a temporary solution at best and does little to benefit your life except in the most obscure circumstances. What would you do for food once you eat your companion? Survival is easier when one has more hands to accomplish the tasks that will allow one to live. In a desert island scenario, isolation and, not to mention guilt over having taken a life and having eaten another human being would likely drive you insane, unless you were a sociopath and insane to begin with. Tasks such as shelter, maintaining a fire, securing water, gathering food, etc., are not easy. I agree with Paul McKeever that it is a stupid question designed to undermine egoism and is one of the most unlikely events to occur. It is however a question that I've been asked, and don't know how to respond to on another forum. So I turn to you for help. Here is my understanding of rights under Objectivism. In order for me to survive, I have to be able to make free choices. In order for that to happen, others have to not interfere with those choices. In order for that to happen, we must both agree to not interfere with each other's choices. So we make a non-aggression pact of some sort. If however the only way for me to survive longer is to kill and eat another person, e.g. on a life raft, and since my survival is the basis of me agreeing to the non-aggression, is not the non-aggression pact not getting in the way of my survival. While I agree that it is one of the most obscure circumstances, I'm just wondering if the non-aggression pact is an absolute, or if it's based on circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 In order for me to survive, I have to be able to make free choices. In order for that to happen, others have to not interfere with those choices.By use of force: "interfere" is too vague a term for rights to hinge on.In order for that to happen, we must both agree to not interfere with each other's choices. So we make a non-aggression pact of some sort.No, in order for that to happen, others must not initiate force against you. In a social context with a rights-respecting and protecting government, the government announces consequences for the initiation of force which would deter anyone from initiating force against you. Agreement itself is not necessary, and the "non-aggression pact" is a libertarian fiction. The moral principle that you should not initiate force against another man is not a metaphysically-given absolute. Ethics serves a particular purpose, and a principle such as the NIF principle states what is proper by man's nature. You can chose to ignore that nature, so yes, you can act as a savage animal if you are ever in a lifeboat. You can even act as an animal at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrSammyD Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Sorry about the interfere/force confusion. Force is what I meant. No, in order for that to happen, others must not initiate force against you. In a social context with a rights-respecting and protecting government, the government announces consequences for the initiation of force which would deter anyone from initiating force against you. Agreement itself is not necessary, and the "non-aggression pact" is a libertarian fiction. The moral principle that you should not initiate force against another man is not a metaphysically-given absolute. Ethics serves a particular purpose, and a principle such as the NIF principle states what is proper by man's nature. You can chose to ignore that nature, so yes, you can act as a savage animal if you are ever in a lifeboat. You can even act as an animal at work. This is where I get lost then. How do I get from "In order for me to survive, others must not initiate force against me" to "I must not initiate force against others"? Is it from the existence of a government that prohibits such actions? What if no government enforces that? (e.g. U.S. under certain circumstances, Somalia) Or is it because of the reason that if I don't attack them, they will be less likely to attack me? What if their ability to attack is eliminated? Why should I refrain then? Or a third option I haven't said. As for the original question, am I supposed to choose death (by starvation) over living as a savage (by killing and eating a human)? Why is that rational self-interest. Sure I may go insane or get a disease, but that is an extra quarter in the game of life, where as death is game over. Actually upon rereading your statement are you saying it's ok to eat that person or that ethics don't apply? Or just merely that it's a possibility that I could do those things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0n Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) You might not be safe in assuming that eating your partner will really prolong your life, for one thing. The hypothetical itself is quite a ridiculous stretch, the added dilemma "it's eat your buddy or you die" is of course false in and of itself which compounds the ridiculousness. However, what you're asking is when it's okay to violate a fairly simple logical principle. And the answer is: as long as you intend to do the morally-correct thing, never. You have a right to live, and so does your partner... by killing him in order to survive, you commit about as serious a contradiction as you possibly ever could: 1. A ... (man has a right to his own life) [therefore I am going to kill and eat] 2. ~A ... it is not true that (man has a right to his own life) [therefore my partner is going to die for my sake] /3. A and ~A In other words, remembering why you have the right that you do have will enlighten you as to why you can't kill people to eat (or steal to eat, or steal to get pay channels) without violating someone's rights and slamming yourself into logical contradiction. But the question should never be "can" I do this ... always "should" I do this ... and the answer to the correct question here is pretty obviously "no." Edited July 28, 2009 by Jas0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.