Moral Dilemma About "cooties"

[stephen_speicher]

Because a lifeboat scenario is an extreme case of an unprecedented situation, it is likely that no *specific* moral principles will exist to guide one’s actions – however it is incorrect to say that the actions one takes in such a scenario are outside of morality.

But that is just what Ayn Rand does say about lifeboat situations. In the Q & A that we were were discussing, she says, in regard to lifeboat situations, that "morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right."

As she points out, morality is dependent on metaphysics, on the nature of the world within which he lives, and man does not live on a lifeboat where the choice is his life or the life of another. Morality is not to be taken out of the context from which it is derived.

[DavidV]

As she points out, morality is dependent on metaphysics, on the nature of the world within which he lives, and man does not live on a lifeboat where the choice is his life or the life of another. Morality is not to be taken out of the context from which it is derived.

On what possible basis can man act then? He has to make a decision based on some criteria, doesn’t he? The basic facts of existence to not change in an emergency – man has to consider the facts, and make a decision based on his values. What other choice does he have?

Here is an example Ayn Rand used: you are trapped in the wilderness and facing starvation, when you come upon a locked and isolated cabin. Is it immoral, amoral, or moral to break in and take the food? Are the rights of the cabin’s owner invalidated by your breaking in? Obviously not. The basic principles still guide one’s action in such a situation: breaking in is justified because you valuing your life, but respect for other’s rights requires that your compensate the owner.

[stephen_speicher]

On what possible basis can man act then? He has to make a decision based on some criteria, doesn’t he? The basic facts of existence to not change in an emergency – man has to consider the facts, and make a decision based on his values. What other choice does he have?

We are talking about a lifeboat situation where only one man can survive, so he either acts to maintain his own life by taking the life of the other, or he forfeits his own. What moral code could you possibly apply to such a situation? (Rhetorical question.) This is why we base our morality on the nature of the world within which we live, not on a lifeboat.

Here is an example Ayn Rand used: you are trapped in the wilderness and facing starvation, when you come upon a locked and isolated cabin.  Is it immoral, amoral, or moral to break in and take the food?  Are the rights of the cabin’s owner invalidated by your breaking in?  Obviously not.  The basic principles still guide one’s action in such a situation: breaking in is justified  because you valuing your life, but respect for other’s rights requires that your compensate the owner.

That is an entirely different situation. The lifeboat situation Miss Rand discussed had an irrevocable consequence, the ending of a life. In such a situation you cannot simply "compensate the owner" after the deed is done. There is no moral guide. It is either your life, or his.

[DavidV]

We are talking about a lifeboat situation where only one man can survive, so he either acts to maintain his own life by taking the life of the other, or he forfeits his own. What moral code could you possibly apply to such a situation? (Rhetorical question.)

But it's a necessary question, since any action a man takes must be based on some sort of values. What other criteria for judgment is there, other than which action best achieves (or preserves) one's values? In other words, “moral evaluation” is implicit in the very notion of volitional action.

[stephen_speicher]

But it's a necessary question, since any action a man takes must be based on some sort of values. What other criteria for judgment is there, other than which action best achieves (or preserves) one's values? In other words, "moral evaluation" is implicit in the very notion of volitional action.

But morality is not some out-of-context absolute. The actions of a man in this life-or-death situation affect not only himself, but the life of an innocent other. In dealing with others morality teaches us that we must respect their individual rights, and the ultimate source of those rights is the right to one's own life. How can morality tell us how to act when the situation itself -- the innocent person's life or your own -- removes the very basis for morality? This "lifeboat" situation is an anomaly, a unique, bizarre situation where the metaphysics has placed us outside the realm where morality applies, where the basis for a moral code to guide our actions in relation to others has been removed, i.e., where life as a standard of value and respect for that life in our dealings with others, cannot be achieved. That is why morality is based on the metaphysical nature of the world within which we live -- not on "lifeboat" metaphysics -- and that is why either course of action -- your life or the life of the other -- can be considered to be a "right" course of action.

[coirecfox]

That is why morality is based on the metaphysical nature of the world within which we live -- not on "lifeboat" metaphysics -- and that is why either course of action -- your life or the life of the other -- can be considered to be a "right" course of action.

Are you saying that in this situation to die for the sake of the other person--no matter who it is--is a right course of action? Wouldn't you try to sustain your life even if it meant killing the other person? I think I understand what you mean when you say that this situation is outside the juristiction of morality. It is because morality is based on the idea of life--without life there could be no other values. Life preceedes morality, in effect, because it is the standard of morality. The metaphysical fact of life and its nature as non-dependant on other's lives cause us to create a selfish morality. I would agree that this decision has as much moral relevance as any other metaphysically given, such as rock at point B as opposed to rock at point A. But, I believe that GreedyCapitalist has a point. I don't think the decsion can be left up to chance. You still must choose his life or yours--you cant evade that fact. While you can't be held morally responsible for your choice, you still must make a choice based on standards because you are and value your existence and you know that you do. To do otherwise would be to evade the context in which the decision is made--that is--your consciousness.

Does that make sense or should I clarify?

[stephen_speicher]

Are you saying that in this situation to die for the sake of the other person--no matter who it is--is a right course of action?  Wouldn't you try to sustain your life even if it meant killing the other person?

Personally, yes, I would. Ayn Rand, however, said that she probably would not. I do not know her reasons for thinking that way -- perhaps, as I previously speculated, she thought she could not live with herself if she killed an innocent person -- but, regardless, morality does not pertain and either course of action would be "right."

I think I understand what you mean when you say that this situation is outside the juristiction of morality.... But, I believe that GreedyCapitalist has a point.  I don't think the decsion can be left up to chance.

Since I have not argued that the decision should be left to chance, I do not know who you are arguing with about that.

You still must choose his life or yours--you cant evade that fact. While you can't be held morally responsible for your choice, you still must make a choice based on ...

Whatever you base your choice on, morality does not pertain to the lifeboat situation.

[DavidV]

I just had this thought regarding the recent thread about the immortal robot: just as no values are possible to a non-living being, no action is possible to a living being that does not aid or hinder its life. For humans, as for all animals, all actions have a positive of negative impact on their life.

The only question then, is epistemological, not metaphysical: is it possible to make a moral evaluation prior to every non-random human action? The answer is yes – if a choice is made in relation to some value(s), it must have a relation to one’s life, since values as such can only be derived from one’s life. Attempting to deny the tie between volitional actions and values is just as impossible as attempting to prove that a non-living being (i.e. the immortal robot) could have values.

[stephen_speicher]

I just had this thought ...

You keep saying the same thing in slightly different words, but you never address my points of criticism. One final try, in the hope that you will directly address this point. You frame the issue as if there is just a single person and ignore the fact that the issue has to do with taking the life of an innocent other. I am sure you agree that initiating the use of physical force against another is immoral, and intentionally taking the life of an innocent person via that force is immoral almost beyond words. Then, ask yourself if, as you state, a "moral evaluation prior to every non-random action" is possible, in all imaginable circumstances, then how can a "moral evaluation" lead to an immoral outcome (the taking of an innocent life)? In other words, how can morality contradict itself? The answer is, of course, it cannot, which is yet another reason why morality does not pertain to such a "lifeboat" situation.

[coirecfox]

Since I have not argued that the decision should be left to chance, I do not know who you are arguing with about that.

It almost sounded like that's what you were implicitly suggesting.

I am sure you agree that initiating the use of physical force against another is immoral, and intentionally taking the life of an innocent person via that force is immoral almost beyond words.

The entire situation however is a case of moral essentials. Considered heirarchically, your life must take precedence over the life of any other man. Its as if, comparatively, my life is like the axiom of identity and his life is like the corallary of causality--without identity, causality is not possible. Without life, the above evaluation is not possible. The essential in this situation would be life or non-life. If I were to place a higher value on the other mans life, it would turn ethics on its head. Stephen are you saying it would be a purely metaphysical decision? Simply to be or not to be? I agree with you that one cannot be morally judged after making a decision, but implict in the choice of any volitional being is a standard by which to choose. That standard is morality. You cannot seperate the two.

Let me add however, this situation seems extremely implausible because of mans ability to solve problems. I cannot even concieve of a situation where I could be absolutely sure that it is me or him, and without knowing that I could not condemn another man to death.

[stephen_speicher]

Considered heirarchically, your life must take precedence over the life of any other man.

Regardless of context? Under all possible conditions and circumstances?

Without life, the above evaluation is not possible.

And it is only on the basis of life that we can form a moral code.

I agree with you that one cannot be morally judged after making a decision ...

You mean morality pertained for him, but not for us?

[coirecfox]

Regardless of context? Under all possible conditions and circumstances?

No, but in the context in which all other moral factors have been negated because of the metaphysical facts of reality.

And it is only on the basis of life that we can form a moral code.

Whose life?

You mean morality pertained for him, but not for us?

Are you trying to say that I'm being subjective? My life is worth more to me than a random stranger's life to me. Is there any other way to analyze that? Should I try to maximize the achievement of value, ie more people value him than do value me so I should let him live?

[stephen_speicher]

Are you trying to say that I'm being subjective?

Not that you are being subjective, but rather that the position you are advocating would make morality subjective.

My life is worth more to me than a random stranger's life to me.

Regardless of context? Under any and all possible circumstances?

Is there any other way to analyze that?

Yes. For instance, if you were dying and you knew that you had only one minute to live, would you kill that innocent stranger in this lifeboat situation in order to live for one more minute? How about for ten seconds? What about for a millisecond of life? The overall point is that yes, Man's life is the standard of morality, and your own life is its purpose, but we base our morality on the metaphysics of the world within which man lives, not on the metaphysics of lifeboat situations. Ayn Rand stated that morality does not pertain in that lifeboat situation, because in such a situation one cannot adhere to Man's life as a standard. It is only upon life that a moral code can be established.

[Eddie]

Stephen: “How can morality tell us how to act when the situation itself -- the innocent person's life or your own -- removes the very basis for morality?…that is why either course of action -- your life or the life of the other -- can be considered to be a "right" course of action.”

Strictly speaking, if the situation has removed the basis of morality, neither course of action would be “right”. What's more, if morality is a guide to action, and morality doesn’t apply in this situation, the appropriate course for an Objectivist would be to do nothing. Since his life is no longer his highest value, the Objectivist has no basis for taking any course of action.

Eddie

[coirecfox]

Eddie, that was precisely what Kant said man should do in that situation--nothing. Generally, Kant saying something is right leads me to believe that the opposite is true.

[Eddie]

coirecfox: “Eddie, that was precisely what Kant said man should do in that situation--nothing. Generally, Kant saying something is right leads me to believe that the opposite is true.”

So if Kant says we should treat people as ends in themselves, you think we should do the opposite? If you re-read my post, you will see I was arguing what should be the appropriate course for an Objectivist, not the appropriate course for a Kantian.

As it happens, the Kantian solution is the same, and interestingly, Miss Rand appears to agree with this solution.

Eddie

[DavidV]

I would like to see someone’s explanation as to how ANY human action can be performed without regard to value. Not as a matter of choice, but as the axiomatic tie between action and value. Or can there be certain situations in which values that are divorced from morality?

[coirecfox]

That's what I want to know Greedy.

Sorry about the joke Eddie. But seriously, look at Kant's justification for why people should be considered ends in themselves. I'm sure you'll eventually disagree with him.

[coirecfox]

And by my above post, I dont mean to say that the idea that people are ends in themselves is in any way wrong. I mean that the premises Kant uses to justify it are totally wrong.

[Eddie]

coirecfox: “Sorry about the joke Eddie.”

That’s OK.

coirecfox: “But seriously, look at Kant's justification for why people should be considered ends in themselves. I'm sure you'll eventually disagree with him.”

As far as I understand it, Kant’s justification is that human beings are rational agents, which makes them ends in themselves. To treat someone as a means to one’s end is to violate that rational agency.

For example, if I tell someone lie, I am treating the other person as a means to whatever end I have in mind, because I am compromising their ability to act as a rational agent.

As to whether any human action can be performed without regard to value, if we are by nature moral agents, then all our actions take place within a moral dimension. But some particular actions – shall I eat steak or pork? – have minimal moral value for most people.

Moral considerations come into play when we are faced with certain sorts of hard choices: do I eat the last piece of pie, or offer it to my neighbour?; do I lie and avoid an uncomfortable confrontation, or tell the truth and face the music? And moral considerations come most into play in extreme situations, such as the lifeboat example.

Unfortunately, it’s at the point where we most need morality that Rand deserts the stage, saying morality cannot apply. The implication is that in some situations we can cast aside all moral considerations and strive for brute survival. Her argument is that extreme situations are a different kind of event to the normal run. But of course they’re not; the difference is one of degree, not one of kind.

An ethic that can’t address some life and death situations, especially an ethic with life as its cornerstone, needs a lot more work to make it fly.

Eddie

[stephen_speicher]

I would like to see someone’s explanation as to how ANY human action can be performed without regard to value.  Not as a matter of choice, but as the axiomatic tie between action and value.

There are several. For instance, to act towards an object or seek a goal under force, does not imply that the object or the goal are of value to you.

(Incidentally, I do not think that your use of "axiomatic" captures the proper relationship between action and value.)

Or can there be certain situations in which values that are divorced from morality?

Miss Rand described a particular situation in which morality does not pertain. That is what I have been discussing. Even if, for whatever reason, you do not agree, do you not realize that that is the issue? Why do you not address the arguments that have been made instead of trying to deduce an answer from some other principle?

[coirecfox]

Stephen:

Miss Rand described a particular situation in which morality does not pertain. That is what I have been discussing. Even if, for whatever reason, you do not agree, do you not realize that that is the issue? Why do you not address the arguments that have been made instead of trying to deduce an answer from some other principle?

First, let me clarify the issue to make sure I have it correct: In a situation where man has been metaphysically reduced to a choice between his life and the life of another, morality a) neither pertains to his choice nor a later evalutation of his choice or B ) does not pertain to his choice but does pertain to a later evaluation of his choice or c) pertains to his choice but not to a later evaluation of his choice.

If this is not the issue then we should probably clarify it before we continue.

I think the disagreement also may lie in the question of whether or not all of man's choices are inherently moral ones, ie inherently based on values. I think they are. I also believe this quesiton should be addressed before we continue as it is a more fundamental concern in this situation, that being the metaphysicsl nature of man rather than the code of ethics he follows.

I think that Greedy and I are trying to say that, because man is cognitive and rational, there can never be such a situation in which morality does not apply. Stephen, you said that the position I was advocating makes morality subjective, but if morality does not apply, how can it be subjective at the same time? What does your position do for morality? If morality does not apply in this situation, what standard should I base my choice on? What I am asking is how can you seperate morality and choice if man possesses consciousness? If you were in this situation, would you conscioulsy say, "This situation is outside the realm of morality" and not choose or randomly choose because of this?

I understand that Rand said that morality does not pertain to this situation. What does "does not pertain" mean though? Does it mean should not be applied to choice, or does it mean that any action taken should not be evaluated morally

to the situation, but man must still make a choice, he cannot be morally judged for his choice.

...morality does not pertain in that lifeboat situation, because in such a situation one cannot adhere to Man's life as a standard. It is only upon life that a moral code can be established.

But you can choose to live or not to live. So is there a standard for such a choice?

Greedy if I have misrepresented you in any way let me know so I can stop.

[DavidV]

There are several. For instance, to act towards an object or seek a goal under force, does not imply that the object or the goal are of value to you.

In such a case, the value is not the object one is forced to act towards, but the value one is seeking to preserve by obeying an order – namely one’s safety. My argument is that to the extent that one chooses to act between known alternatives, one chooses between different values, and therefore faces the choice of acting morally or not.

(Incidentally, I do not think that your use of "axiomatic" captures the proper relationship between action and value.)

I unintentionally used the term “axiomatic” in the sense that Austrian economists use it – from whom my position is derived. From an Objectivist perspective, I would say that the fact that values are inseparable from actions follows directly from the context of life as the standard of value.

Miss Rand described a particular situation in which morality does not pertain. That is what I have been discussing. Even if, for whatever reason, you do not agree, do you not realize that that is the issue? Why do you not address the arguments that have been made instead of trying to deduce an answer from some other principle?

That’s because I don’t disagree with those arguments. I have instead argued my position from a much more basic principle, which applies to all actions, not just emergency situations.

(There is a question of “well, if actions in emergency situations require moral evaluations, what basis would there be for one?” that I have not answered, but that is a secondary consideration, that can only be resolved after agreement on the basics.)

[DavidV]

Greedy if I have misrepresented you in any way let me know so I can stop.

No, I think you are generally on track.

[stephen_speicher]

That’s because I don’t disagree with those arguments.

I took your original posting as disagreement, which is why I started discussing this with you. If you say that you actually agree, then I will not bother with these secondary issues and I'll go on vacation from this thread.