Jonny Glat Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 This is a hypothetical situation that I've been debating with a friend concerning whether initiating force is 'ever' viable. My friend gives the situation in which a college student who doesn't receive help from his parents financially learns that he has cancer. He doesn't have insurance and can't pay for the operations, chemo, and other services. He will die in several months unless he receives treatment. The question: Is it viable in the long run to steal $50,000 from someone he doesn't know to pay for all the treatments that will 'most likely' allow him to survive for many years afterwards? I have my reasons as to why its not viable in the long run but I'd like to get some feedback and quotes from Rand on why initiating force is irrational/not viable in this situation. Or is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToyoHabu Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Viable has several meanings according to context, Based on your description I think this one "Able to be done, possible" fits. Using this definition, its is certainly possible to steal $50000. I would think it is not as possible as finding a doctor and a hospital and some benefactors who would be willing to work things out. Jonny Glat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Glat Posted September 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 let's assume that this is the only option (it is such a small chance - maybe even impossible) open to you. That there are no charitible organizations or doctors willing to work things out. Is it viable to steal in order to save your life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 But you might die anyway even after stealing the 50,000 and getting the treatment. Cancer is like that sometimes. I would would say minor property crimes are justified if your life is at stake, but if you have to commit armed robbery that is no longer minor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Glat Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 right - i thk what my friend was saying is that: there are sum instances in which it is viable to use force for the long run. If you don't rob the dude you will die from cancer in weeks. Therefore it is rational to steal 50,000 dollars to ensure that you have a long(er) life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 But I don't think it is viable in the long run, or really just outside of these kinds of life-boat or emergency scenarios. Is it a good long-term strategy to have to keep stealing to survive? I can't imagine so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 right - i thk what my friend was saying is that: there are sum instances in which it is viable to use force for the long run. If you don't rob the dude you will die from cancer in weeks. Therefore it is rational to steal 50,000 dollars to ensure that you have a long(er) life. That is not for the long run, that is for the short term. Long term thinking would consider if a long prison term is preferable to being dead. 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.