tommyedison Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have never been able to understand the reasoning behind this argument. Morality is a set of values required to live a life. The values are determined by reason. Ayn Rand said that where rational choices were not possible, no morality applied. If morality doesn't determine what is to be done in lifeboat, extreme and unlikely situations, then what does? Arbitrary decision making? Feelings, whims, blind emotions? Ayn Rand further said that morality didn't apply to a situation in which say Man A was forcing Man B to kill Man C. If Man B doesn't comply, Man B gets killed. Ayn Rand said that no rational choice was possible for Man B. But if life is the standard of living, Man B should do everything possible to sustain his life. Then wouldn't killing Man C be the rational choice for Man B? I know it seems wasteful that I am thinking about unlikely situations but I like all questions to be rationally answered. I have not been able to find a rational answer to this question. Please help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshleyAyn Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Perhaps I am going to over-simplify this - or maybe I am missing your point altogether. Morality ends where the gun begins. period. What she meant by that was that the person in that lifeboat situation actually has no choice and to be judged on your actions you have to have the freedom to act. The immoral man is Man A, and every action that he undertakes, or forces someone else to undertake becomes his responsibility because he initiated the situation and the force. In a great deal of the emergency ethical situations the freedom to act is limited to so few choices - none of which are particullarly moral - that they are not really relevant to the real world. They tend to be a waste of time because it would be extremely unlikely that any one of us would be in a situation like that - and I would assume that you already act in moral ways otherwise (the usual day-to-day activities) then you would likely choose (if a choice were available) the correct action in an emergency situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 What Ayn Rand objected to was the use of life-boat situations as a model of reality from which to extrapolate ethical principles, a technique frequently used by the altruists. In a lifeboat, or emergency, situation, life is not sustainable. Resources are limited and none can be created or obtained. Either the situation is temporary, or those in it will perish. That the altruists see this as a model of life in general only points out that suffering and death are what they view as significant. This is the essence of the "malevolent universe" mentality. As for the example of the three men (A, B and C) ask yourself what value B would gain by killing C. His own life? That was never A's to offer in the first place. By agreeing to kill C in exchange for his life, B surrenders to A the principle of ownership of his own life. Once surrendered, it can never be regained. What is to prevent A from demanding further immoral actions from B? Any compromise with evil is a total surrender. Evil need only be evil some of the time; good must be consistently so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 As for the example of the three men (A, B and C) ask yourself what value B would gain by killing C. His own life? That was never A's to offer in the first place. By agreeing to kill C in exchange for his life, B surrenders to A the principle of ownership of his own life. Once surrendered, it can never be regained. What is to prevent A from demanding further immoral actions from B? Any compromise with evil is a total surrender. Evil need only be evil some of the time; good must be consistently so. Umm I dont think man B killing man C is immoral, if so then there are alot of Vietnam vets that are more immoral than I thought. Whenever threatens you to do something, you comply simply because no other choices exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 Umm I dont think man B killing man C is immoral, if so then there are alot of Vietnam vets that are more immoral than I thought. Whenever threatens you to do something, you comply simply because no other choices exist. Did John Galt break down under torture and danger to his life? He was offered dictatorship yet he refused even though the looters tried to force him. I think Evangelical Capitalist is correct. A man who values his life too much like John Galt would not accept a substitute for it. He would not compromise with the evil. Anyway, thank you for your replies. 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.