Emergency Situations

[Proverb]

There are 2 principles one could follow in a Titanic situation. Either pragmatism (every man for himself which would involve lots of fighting and throwing people overboard), or altruism (accept that you are going to lose your life and sacrifice it for someone elses life).

There are no 'principles' in emergency situations. The course of action that even the most rational person would follow in these situations would rely on every element of what lies before him. I'm not 'tip-toeing' here nor am I being subjective. No principles can be applied to emergency situations. It's like trying to find someone to blame for a hurricane. There is no one to blame and all one can do is get through it (an emergency) through whatever means.

[D'kian]

There are no 'principles' in emergency situations. The course of action that even the most rational person would follow in these situations would rely on every element of what lies before him.

The only rational principle is to think ahead. Rationally. If you don't travel by boat often, there is no sense in worrying about what you'd do in a shipwreck. On the other hand, any structure can catch fire, therefore it is rational to think about what to do in the event of a fire.

There is plenty of information available for such things. Fires in particular.

But the really relevant point is, as has been said in this thread, that life is not a series of emergencies. Therefore emergencies are not the appropriate basis on wghich to base once ethics.

[softwareNerd]

Brit, Your question is this: what principle can we apply in a one-of-a-kind emergency situation which one is unlikely to ever encounter and for which one has no reason to plan.

Not sure what you mean by "principle". Would you offer a definition?

[TheOpposition]

Hello all. First time poster here, I thought I'd start here on this thread. A striving student of Objectivism.

Although I'm still a little hazy on the Emergency Situation, (I'll think on it some more.) I have a comment about the Grenade tossing example.

There is another example of the lifeboat scenario, albeit much more bizarre, that was mentioned in my friend's college philosophy class. In this example, there are four people in four closed rooms with open ceilings, and a live grenade tossed in. Your choice is to let the grenade explode and die, or toss it over the wall into the next room. I believe the example was used to try to show the inherent conflict between people.

If person-A- suddenly finds a grenade in his room, and knowingly tosses it into person-B-'s room, would that not mean person-A- is initiating force against an innocent being? And thus person-a- is considered Evil by Objectivism?

It just sound like Altruism from a different angle. Instead of being guilted to sacrifice yourself, your physically put on top of a grenade. (If you choose to toss the grenade at another person)

So, I guess an objectivist would either learn, very quickly, how to stop a grenade from detonating. Or come to the conclusion that living a shorter-than-expected and Moral life, is better than living a longer yet Evil life.

If there are any holes in that kind of thinking, make sure to point it out

[RationalBiker]

Hello all. First time poster here, I thought I'd start here on this thread. A striving student of Objectivism.

Welcome to the fourm.

First, I would point out just how ridiculous I think it is to use situations like this (the grenade toss) to determine a proper moral response. It's already been said several times in this thread that "emergency" situations are NOT purposeful in determining morality. When thrust into a situation that is not of you own making or doing, and the choices are "live or die", any rational human being is likely to do their best to survive.

However, given the scenario as presented, it says the grenade is tossed in to the room you are in. I would toss the grenade back into the direction in which it was thrown in from because that is you most likely chance one has to fight back against whoever is now initiating force against you bu throwing a grenade at you. If the context of the scenario is now changed to prevent that as an option, tossing it over the wall is likely to be a no-win situation because one or all of the other folks are probably tossing their grenades over the wall into your room. Boom, everybody dies, and nobody participating in the speculation of this scenario has learned anything of use in their life.

That said, do not take my response to give any significant value to the posing of this question in the first place. It would be a dubious value at best to try to plan for this type of event, and it serves no value for evaluating morality.

[brit2006]

Which of the following would you guys agree with:

Survival?

Do what you can to save your own life and the lives of people you love, even if that means throwing a few strangers overboard in order to ensure a seat for your kid?

Death?

Ie. Accept that you are going to die and instead try and help other into seats?

[Proverb]

Which of the following would you guys agree with:

In what context?

You can't say, "in the context of an emergency" because each and every one is different. In some emergencies death is the only option, in others it may be better odds. You can't just say, "life or death" and use that answer in every emergency you happen to endure.

I personally would do anything I could to save myself from any immediate danger. The context of 'life' that morals are based on is under direct threat in an emergency and my actions would reflect that to some degree depending wholly on the situation at hand.

[Spano]

If person-A- suddenly finds a grenade in his room, and knowingly tosses it into person-B-'s room, would that not mean person-A- is initiating force against an innocent being? And thus person-a- is considered Evil by Objectivism?

First, I believe there is supposed to be only one grenade, such that it will end up exploding in one of the rooms. But this isn't important. The point is that the situation represents a context where against your will, you are forced to harm another person or die. In this context, where survival is not possible to everyone, the Objectivist ethics does not apply, and throwing the grenade away in a last ditch attempt to survive is certainly not evil, and I would say not even open to ethical analysis - it's simply what has to be done, no rational choice about it (and ethics is about rational choices).

By seriously considering this scenario (which is intentionally bizarre), you are falling for its intended trick - to get people to question the viability of ethics by presenting a necessarily impossible (and unreal) situation. The reality is different. We don't live in a constant stream of lifeboat situations, and if we did, we'd all be dead in short order anyway.

[gags]

By seriously considering this scenario (which is intentionally bizarre), you are falling for its intended trick - to get people to question the viability of ethics by presenting a necessarily impossible (and unreal) situation.

Yes, the purpose behind most of these wierd scenarios is to force people to say that there are no principles that can be used to guide morality.

[softwareNerd]

Which of the following would you guys agree with: Survival? Death?

I assume you're not asking about personal preference, but more in the nature of "which choice would Objectivism recommend?"

We have to assume a lot in this example, because the real situation would be that if everyone on the ship were fighting for their own life, most would not survive. However, assume a simpler hypothetical where you do have the power to make your decision: your life or someone else's. Let's also assume that the other person is not known to you, because that would change the calculation. Not only do you have no reason to like the person, but you have no reason to dislike them.

If one assumes all that, then it's tempting to say that Objectivism would recommend opting for your life.

However, this would be a substantial misunderstanding of Objectivist Ethics. If someone were to say "I will kill the other person", Objectivism will neither condemn them nor approve. Objectivism does not hold staying alive as a fundamental "edict". What it does is give you guidelines on how to live, when life is the standard.

So, what you can get are answers about personal preference. If the situation were truly neutral, I would kill the other person; however, I doubt that I will ever encounter a truly neutral situation, where I will not make some judgement about the other person.

I hope this answers your question completely.

[Clawg]

I'd say that Objectivism would recommend to throw out anyone who wants to throw out you (or your loved ones).

This way (if you can manage to do that) all people who follow this principle will stay in the boat and all people who don't will not (if they are able to do that).

If ALL people think that way we have a problem

[brit2006]

I assume you're not asking about personal preference, but more in the nature of "which choice would Objectivism recommend?"

We have to assume a lot in this example, because the real situation would be that if everyone on the ship were fighting for their own life, most would not survive. However, assume a simpler hypothetical where you do have the power to make your decision: your life or someone else's. Let's also assume that the other person is not known to you, because that would change the calculation. Not only do you have no reason to like the person, but you have no reason to dislike them.

If one assumes all that, then it's tempting to say that Objectivism would recommend opting for your life.

However, this would be a substantial misunderstanding of Objectivist Ethics. If someone were to say "I will kill the other person", Objectivism will neither condemn them nor approve. Objectivism does not hold staying alive as a fundamental "edict". What it does is give you guidelines on how to live, when life is the standard.

( So, what you can get are answers about personal preference. If the situation were truly neutral, I would kill the other person; however, I doubt that I will ever encounter a truly neutral situation, where I will not make some judgement about the other person.

I hope this answers your question completely.

You nearly answered my question by saying what you would do in a neutral situation but then you qualified it by saying how you would never find a truly neutral situtation. Therefore, assuming that you will never find a truly neutral situation, what would you do? Either:

1. Try and survive

Do whatever you can to save your own life and the lives of people you love, even if that means throwing a few strangers overboard in order to ensure a seat for your kid?

2. Accept death

Accept that you are going to die and instead try and help others into seats?

If you say that your choice would depend on the specifics of the situation, could you please elaborate about the specifics you have in mind? ie If a beautiful women wanted a seat would that make you choose 2?

[softwareNerd]

I answered for a neutral situation: what I would do and also that Objectivism does not have a prescription.

Why would it not be neutral? A beautiful woman? Sure, if I think she's beautiful enough. Point is, it's just a matter of degree once we get outside the confines of neutrality.

Edited March 1, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

Exactly. This is what I am trying to figure out.

The answer is that the Objectivist ethics do not apply to such a situation. Morality, as such, does not apply to such a situation. Objectivism has no advice for such a scenario. You are on your own. (I do not have an exact quote at the moment, but this is what I recall.)

[softwareNerd]

Someone questioned me (privately), asking: doesn't Objectivism hold man's life to be the highest value? Doesn't that trump everything? If a value pre-supposes a valuer, what value is there in a beautiful woman absent a valuer?

First, the "beautiful woman" was Brit's example. A more realistic example would be if the woman were my wife. What value is she to me, absent me? However, since he didn't specify just how beautiful, I figured I could imagine someone I was ready to propose to at first sight

As for life being a standard of value, the suicide thread might have more on the topic. The point is that Objectivism does not lay down an edict saying "thou shalt enjoy life as fully as you can". To want to do so is natural to a healthy human being, and Objectivism shows you how.

However, as Inspector and others have said, Objectivist Ethics does not apply in this situation. The reason is that Objectivist Ethics starts from life as we know it and figures out the way to live. It does not say, "in all possible worlds" this is what you should do. To take it's conclusions and say they apply to a situation that was never it's basis is arbitrary. It might apply, or it might not.

If you're already familiar with the "Ethics of Emergencies" article in Virtue of Selfishness, you'll find a little more in the new "Ayn Rand Answers" book as well.

[JMeganSnow]

Ethics is a guide for living: there is no guide in situations where life is impossible.

[Maarten]

I guess the point of Brit's example is that one finds oneself in a situation where one must choose between acting to preserve one's life and acting to preserve someone else's life. When one is forced to make such a choice, in a context where the non-sacrificial pursuit of life is not possible to all the humans involved, how ought one act?

I would say that if one has to choose between their own life and someone else's (who I assume you don't know, and therefore has far less value to you than your own life does) then I think you should choose your own life.

Just like in a situation where someone jumps into a near-frozen river to save a total stranger and thereby greatly endangers his own life, I would say that it is immoral to sacrifice your own life for such a purpose. At the very least it would indicate that you don't value your own life much at all.

Of course this changes when you have to choose between someone you love and yourself, but in this scenario I think that someone who truly values his own life should act in accordance to his values.

I agree with most of the rest of you that these sort of "lifeboat scenarios" are rather silly to use as examples to see how a moral code works. Like AR said in that article about emergencies, if we lived in a universe where emergencies were the normal order of the day, then we would be unable to survive.

We don't live in such a universe, and in my opinion it is pointless to spend endless time debating what to do should such a situation ever come up. In a way this is similar to arbitrary statements; if there is no reason to suspect you will ever come across such a situation, then you shouldn't spend your valuable time thinking about it; just dismiss someone's "problem" out of hand.

Another thing I notice is that these scenarios are usually set up in such a way as to make any rational solutions impossible, which is not a very realistic scenario at all. This is not very different from someone stacking the deck when you play cards with them.

And because the main use of these hypothetical situations should be to derive some sort of principle from them that tells you how to act (at least, I think that's what the purpose is...), such a heavily-modified situation that it would never ever occur like that in real life is not a very good basis to draw any conclusions on.

[Illuminaughty]

I'm not sure I understand Objectivism's position on emergency situations.

1. How is an emergency defined?

2. When there is an emergency, how do you determine how to act?

Nothing changes in an emergency. Morals and physics do not change. Only the sense of danger and condition of things changes. You may have to live a different way, but there's no reason to change your moral system because of it. If your moral system changes when an emergency arises, its not a solid system to begin with.

[softwareNerd]

The recent thread on using nuclear weapons is not the first time there's been some debate on the terms "emergency"/"life boat situation" and what Rand meant by the term. I thought I'd revive this thread is folks want to discuss the terms in depth.

[~Sophia~]

Excerpt from a radio show from early 1960s, called "Ayn Rand on Campus." broadcast by WKCR at Columbia University, show titled "Morality, and Why Man Requires It." (I remembered reading it some time ago on The Forum so I went back and found it again)

Gerald Goodman: "Miss Rand, then you would say that a person who was starving, and the only way he could acquire food was to take the food of a second party, then he would have no right, even though it meant his own life, to take the food."

Ayn Rand: "Not in normal circumstances, but that question sometimes is asked about emergency situations. For instance, supposing you are washed ashore after a shipwreck, and there is a locked house which is not yours, but you're starving and you might die the next moment, and there is food in this house, what is your moral behavior? I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article 'The Ethics Of Emergencies' in The Virtue Of Selfishness for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as 'of right.' You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts."

Notice the conditions: you are starving and may die in the next moment and the only thing arround is this house with food inside.

Also notice that morality pertain as the emergency is over (so it is not completely out of the window - just in that specific moment) and one should restitute.

Taking another's life however is final.

Question and Answer period of Ayn Rand's 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech:

This is an example of what I call "lifeboat questions" -- ethical formulations such as "What should a man do if he and another man are in a lifeboat that can hold only one?" First, every code of ethics must be based on a metaphysics -- on a view of the world in which man lives. But man does not live in a lifeboat -- in a world in which he must kill innocent men to survive.

.... But suppose someone lives in a dictatorship, and needs a disguise to escape. If he doesn't get one, the Gestapo or GPU will arrest him. So he must kill an innocent bystander to get a coat. In such a case, morality cannot say what to do.

Under a dictatorship -- under force -- there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where the gun begins. Personally, I would say the man is immoral if he takes an innocent life. But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right -- subjectively. Two men could make opposite choices. I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger; I think I could kill ten if my husband's life was in danger. But such situations could happen only under a dictatorship, which is one reason not to live under one."

A typical lifeboat scenario is where it is either your life or the life of an innocent other (a conflict between your life and acting morally).

If someone needs to kill an innocent bystander to get a coat and one needs that coat to save himself (not just because he wants a new coat while living under dictatorship) - morality does not apply when it comes to that particular action but what if someone does not need to kill to obtain a coat? Certainly simply living under the dictatorship does not make all of your choices automatically amoral.

Also, the context of morality does not apply is only for those actions which are absolutely necessary to resolve the emergency. An emergency is not a license to act in anyway towards anyone. Again under dictatorship morality still applies if moral choices are available. A lifeboat scenario is also not a ticket to abandon your own personal morality (honesty, integrity, reason, objectivity).

So, "Morality ends where the gun begins" does not mean that morality is totally out of the window while living under a dictatorship or when at war.

[MisterSwig]

So, "Morality ends where the gun begins" does not mean that morality is totally out of the window while living under a dictatorship or when at war.

Well, since this is a different thread, I'll throw in one more thought.

Notice, Sophia, that your context appears to change once you begin discussing war. When it is you against one attacker, then you have no problem with maintaining the context of the emergency: it is that one attacker attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat he poses to your life. However, once you move to a war scenario, you do not maintain the context that the threat is a nation that is attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat that nation poses to your own nation.

Our soldiers are dying every day in this war; we at home live in fear of another terrorist attack that might topple another one of our skyscrapers and kill thousands. That is the emergency of war. The emergency of war persists, even if a terrorist isn't holding a gun to your head right this minute. Wars are national emergencies, not personal emergencies.

Also, nobody here is arguing that during war all of our actions suddenly become amoral. What becomes amoral are your actions that are directed at the threat to your life, which is the nation that threatens you. To risk damage to your own nation by limiting the amount of force you use against the enemy nation is self-sacrifice.

Edited June 6, 2007 by MisterSwig

[~Sophia~]

Notice, Sophia, that your context appears to change once you begin discussing war. When it is you against one attacker, then you have no problem with maintaining the context of the emergency: it is that one attacker attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat he poses to your life.

Even in the context of one attacker if the issue of collateral damage is relevant - the same principles apply. I am not switching my point of view.

However, once you move to a war scenario, you do not maintain the context that the threat is a nation that is attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat that nation poses to your own nation

.

Having lived under a communist dictatorship I know that there were all kinds of people of various levels of guilt from evil to intelectually immature innocent. In recognition of that and the fact that a person is not morally responsible for the innaction, irrationality, or cowardice of another I believe that if one has the means to spare those when NOT at the expense of proper self defence - one should.

Our soldiers are dying every day in this war; we at home live in fear of another terrorist attack that might topple another one of our skyscrapers and kill thousands.

American soldiers are dying because of altruism. It is sad.

To risk damage to your own nation by limiting the amount of force you use against the enemy nation is self-sacrifice.

Limiting the amount of force is not necessarily equal to risking damage - you may bring your enemy to surrender with less. It is a false dichotomy that either you don't take discrimination into account ever or you are sacrificing. It depends on the situation.

(P.S this thread is about a different topic)

Edited June 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Rourke]

I am hauling this thread out of mothballs as it was the closest thing I could find to this subject. Very interesting conversation here, but it isn't entirely clear to me to what extent Objectivists should avoid sacrifice to help others.

Take for example the case of Wesley Autrey, "The Subway Samaritan". Following a seizure, Cameron Hollopeter stumbled from a subway platform, falling onto the tracks. As Hollopeter lay on the tracks, Autrey saw the lights of an incoming train. As one of the women held Autrey's daughters back away from the edge of the platform, Autrey dove onto the tracks. He thought he would be able to take Hollopeter off the tracks, but he realized there was not enough time to drag Hollopeter away. Instead, he protected Hollopeter by throwing himself over Hollopeter's body in a drainage trench between the tracks, where he held him down. The operator of the train applied the brakes, but two cars still passed over them, close enough to leave grease on his cap.

Now Autrey may not have thought he was was putting his life dire risk of imminent death, but he clearly thought about it and was taking a calculated chance to save a stranger's life. He was widely praised for his efforts, but according to what I understand about the Objectvist pooint of view, his actions were really immoral. Is this correct? What is the acceptable threshold of danger beyond which one must avoid helping others?

In this thread there is the prospect of what to do in a lifeboat situation where there is a stranger and yourself fighting over one last spot. A more interesting scenario to me, touched on here but not explored: what would be the moral thing to do if there is one lifeboat spot and you have the choice of putting yourself on the boat or your child? It seems like the obvious Objectivist solution would be to take the seat yourself, as one's own life must be primary.

I like the grenade scenario, but applied to something more realistic. There have been many cases of a grenade being thrown into a foxhole containing, say, 4 soldiers, where one of the soldiers covers the grenade with this body, essentially sacrificing himself for the others. I understand the views expressed in this thread mean that all bets are off in the case of such an emergency, morally speaking. But how should this man's sacrifice be viewed afterward? Certainly there is the option of taking a morally ambiguous view, that the man was making his own decision in an emergency and leave it at that. But the results clearly result in, to use an oft maligned phrase, a "greater good", as the sacrifice means 3 men now live instead of die. I would think the natural inclination of any person is to see heroic sacrifice, not to feel completely neutral about it.

[Galileo Blogs]

The grenade example is not self-sacrifice. A soldier learns that his greatest odds of individual survival are if each member of his combat unit is willing to risk his life for the survival of the unit. This is not a collectivist idea. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that each individual soldier is better off if each person is willing to take risks for survival of the unit. In the grenade example, the soldier knows that several soldiers will be wounded or killed if he tries to grapple with the grenade and toss it out. So, the best course of action given the short time in which he must act is for him to cover the grenade with his own body.

Another example is a row of soldiers on a defensive perimeter. Each soldier may want to cut and run, but each soldier knows that if they all do that, they will be captured or killed. Therefore, each soldier stays in his foxhole and faces the hail of bullets, knowing that that is the best course of action to achieve survival and victory.

Victory is the other element. Each soldier has volunteered (leaving aside the situation of a draft) to fight to defend his values. Military victory can only be achieved through the actions of cohesive military units. That is the nature of military action. Therefore, each soldier agrees to fight for his unit. It is entirely (rationally) selfish.

***

As for Wesley Autrey, he is not a hero in my book. If he valued his daughters the way a father would, he would not have taken such an incredible risk. He is lucky he survived.

Having said that, he is the only one who can make that decision. It could be that he was not being self-sacrificial. In that exact instant, he may have weighed the risks and felt that they were sufficiently low that it was worthwhile to attempt to save the stranger, even at the risk of making his daughters fatherless (not to mention losing his own life).

I wasn't there, so I won't condemn him, but from my vantage he took an excessive risk. His action appears self-sacrificial, even though there is the possibility it was not.

Edited February 3, 2008 by softwareNerd
Removed huge quote block

[D'kian]

Now Autrey may not have thought he was was putting his life dire risk of imminent death, but he clearly thought about it and was taking a calculated chance to save a stranger's life. He was widely praised for his efforts, but according to what I understand about the Objectvist pooint of view, his actions were really immoral. Is this correct? What is the acceptable threshold of danger beyond which one must avoid helping others?

No, it is not an immoral action. I repeat, emergencies are temporary situations which are far out of the ordinary (I've ridden the subway thousands of times and never seen anyone in the tracks). given how little time he had to consider his actions, though, he may ahve taken a risk larger than he might have given enough time to evaluate the situation.

On the other hand, had he chosen not to risk his life, that wouldn't have been immoral either.

The first action, risking his life, would be immoral only if he knew he'd likely die to save a stranger and went anyway because he valued the stranger's life above his own.

I like the grenade scenario, but applied to something more realistic. There have been many cases of a grenade being thrown into a foxhole containing, say, 4 soldiers, where one of the soldiers covers the grenade with this body, essentially sacrificing himself for the others.

Not so. A soldier has a goal in every war: victory.

A grenade in the foxhole will likely kill or seriously wound all the soldiers in it. By throwing yourself on it you're reducing casualties and advancing your goal, even if it is the last thing you ever do. Sodliers commonly take huge risks in war to protect their fellow soldiers. Firing at the enemy as a distraction, recovering wounded soldiers, even throwing themselves on grenades.