Good Samaritan

[Moebius]

Okay so I've read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but not any of Ayn Rand's actually philosophical works. From what I've gathered, objectivists considers altruism morally wrong, and the pursuit of rational self-interest as the ultimate goal of man.

So assuming that I saw a kid fall into a river, would it be morally wrong, from an objectivist standpoint, for me to risk my life to save the child?

[KendallJ]

Rand addresses in "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

It depends on who the boy is, what danger he's in, what risk to incur to yourself in attempting a rescue.

Basically values come in a heirarchy, which you have to assess. If the person is your wife and she is your highest value, she can't swim, and you are an olympic swimmer, then it would probably be immoral if you didn't.

Also a factor in emergencies is time. So that if you don't have enough time to weigh the evidence and instead make a snap decision, you really aren't responsible if that decision turns out to be in conflict with your values.

[Galileo Blogs]

You have to evaluate the situation selfishly. If it is your child, presumably it would be worth considerable risk to attempt to save the child. If it is a stranger's child, the risk you would be willing to take would be less. If you find yourself in such a situation, you would have to evaluate it quickly given your personal context.

[D'kian]

Also a factor in emergencies is time. So that if you don't have enough time to weigh the evidence and instead make a snap decision, you really aren't responsible if that decision turns out to be in conflict with your values.

You know, I'm amazed every time I face an emergency, be it minor or major, how much thinking my subconscious can accomplish in such a short time. True, you lack the time to evaluate, or even observe, all factors. Therefore your desicions are more likely to be wrong or even in conflict with your values.

As for what to do in an emergency, that's what foresight is for. Every so often, I consider my surroundings and think "What would I do in case of fire, or an earthquake, or a flood?" I do this particularly when traveling, especially in airplanes and hotels. Because once the emergency hits, you won't have time to figure out what to do in a strange place.

In the specific example, rescuing a stranger, it depends on many factors -the most important being the risk to yourself. If the risk is negligible, then you should dive after the drowning child. How big a risk you're willing to take and for whom, though, is a personal decision.

Suppose you can't swim and a child is drowning in a river. You're as likely to drown as to provide minimal help. the rational thing to do would be to yell for help, or to try to help from outside (throwing ropes, branches, anything that floats, etc). Diving in would be irrational, because you'd be sacrificing your life for no purpose.

And those are the easy scenarios. Anything else is much more morally complex.

[Antonio]

Rand addresses in "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

It depends on who the boy is, what danger he's in, what risk to incur to yourself in attempting a rescue.

Basically values come in a heirarchy, which you have to assess. If the person is your wife and she is your highest value, she can't swim, and you are an olympic swimmer, then it would probably be immoral if you didn't.

Also a factor in emergencies is time. So that if you don't have enough time to weigh the evidence and instead make a snap decision, you really aren't responsible if that decision turns out to be in conflict with your values.

Indeed if it's a stranger who is in danger, and one has a spouse and children, it would be contrary to one's values to put oneself at risk. I do not take such risks because I wish to maintain or increase the probability that I will remain alive to be with and help take care of my wife and family - my highest values. I am not paid to be a rescuer and I am certainly not trained in most emergencies. My actions could also then not only be harmful to my highest values if I die or am seriously injured, but I could make matters worse for the party I am trying to rescue if I am not properly trained.

[Moebius]

So it would be immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger?

Another question is this: does placing rational self-interest above all else necessitate placing my own life as my highest value, over even those of my family or children?

And what about giving to the poor? Would that be immoral? This one I guess could be argued as dependent on if you're sacrificing yourself or if you're simply giving out excess resources. But at what point do we cross the line from "sacrifice" to "excess", assuming you left enough to feed and cloth yourself?

Oh and also, according to objectivism, are we then required to help others AT ALL? I mean say a house is on fire, is it moral for me to refuse to help putting it out because, say, there could be a chance that I could pull a muscle or get a burn in doing so?

[aequalsa]

So it would be immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger?

Another question is this: does placing rational self-interest above all else necessitate placing my own life as my highest value, over even those of my family or children?

And what about giving to the poor? Would that be immoral? This one I guess could be argued as dependent on if you're sacrificing yourself or if you're simply giving out excess resources. But at what point do we cross the line from "sacrifice" to "excess", assuming you left enough to feed and cloth yourself?

Oh and also, according to objectivism, are we then required to help others AT ALL? I mean say a house is on fire, is it moral for me to refuse to help putting it out because, say, there could be a chance that I could pull a muscle or get a burn in doing so?

It's all about context. Charity is not a virtue but particular acts of charity mey be virtuous. Saving a stranger is not virtuous but saving a stranger in particular circumstances may be.

Ayn Rand identified 7 virtues. They are virtues because they are always moral. Justice for example. It is never moral to be unjust. Rationality, dito.

Circumstances like those you provide are impossible to to answer generally without descending into a long progression of "what abouts?"

[softwareNerd]

... does placing rational self-interest above all else necessitate placing my own life as my highest value...

It's worth pointing out that the idea is not to stay alive at any cost. To live 10 years as a free person in the U.S. would be far more enjoyable and fulfilling than to live 20 years in a Soviet gulag. Objectivist ethics starts by considering the factors that go into human life, action and happiness and from the myriad observations of these, it concludes that life is the standard of value. That is to say, when we are looking for a justification for our actions, we do not have to look to the service of our neighbors, of the state or of God; rather, our life itself is the ultimate justification.

Even communists and religious folk choose to stay alive; it isn't the prerogative of Objectivists. Indeed, it is really a precondition for the discussion of "what to do" (a.k.a. ethics). Strictly speaking, Objectivist ethics does not say that you must remain alive, come what may, but rather tells you -- in philosophic terms -- how you can make the most out of life.

We've had some threads about these topics (helping others, risking life, etc.); a few searches should turn up some interesting stuff.

[D'kian]

So it would be immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger?

Not necessarily. This question and

And what about giving to the poor? Would that be immoral? This one I guess could be argued as dependent on if you're sacrificing yourself or if you're simply giving out excess resources.

I think it's best to quote ayn Rand:

"The issue is not whether you give a dime to a beggar, but whether you have a right to exist if you don't."

Oh and also, according to objectivism, are we then required to help others AT ALL?

That's a definite no.

I mean say a house is on fire, is it moral for me to refuse to help putting it out because, say, there could be a chance that I could pull a muscle or get a burn in doing so?

I repeat, you must asses what kind of risk you're willing to run. Me, I wouldn't go into a burning building to save a random stranger, unless the fire had just got started. Fire is too dangerous. I would do so for someone I valued, however.

[BrassDragon]

Moebius,

You really should pick up some of Rand's nonfiction. It would help you answer your questions in a much more time-efficient manner than trying to work everything out on your own.

ARI's Suggested Reading List could be helpful--you've already completed #1 and #2.

Personally, I'd start by getting a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and reading any essays that pique your interest.

[Dorian]

All I have to do is value human life to justify a rescue. My actions would benefit my community and hopefully inspire actions that benefit me.

[hunterrose]

So it would be immoral to risk your own life to save a stranger?

Another question is this: does placing rational self-interest above all else necessitate placing my own life as my highest value, over even those of my family or children?

It's the idea of an obligation to save or not save a stranger that'd be immoral. Just as one is not morally required to put oneself in danger for a stranger, one is equally not obligated to stay out of danger simply because it may result in harm to oneself.

Same thing for charity.

At what point do we cross the line from "sacrifice" to "excess", assuming you left enough to feed and cloth yourself?

When it goes against your better judgement?

Are we then required to help others AT ALL? I mean say a house is on fire.

Maybe if you caused the fire

[~Sophia~]

Are we then required to help others AT ALL?

Kindness toward others, good will, benevolance proceed from an opposite code of morality than the anti-man, anti-self ethics of altruism - from the principle that man is an entity of a supreme value.

A man of self-esteem, uncorrupted by altruism, is a man who values human life - because he values his own life, because to him human being is a designation of honor. It is one's view of oneself that determines one's view of man and of human stature.

The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic - in revering living like entities they are revering their own life.

It is a mistake to equate any help with altruism and any motive for helping others with a motive demanded by altruism.

When no sacrifice is involved, rational man would render help, not as a duty, but out of loyality to the value of living human entities and to the human potential. In such situation one would properly refuse help only if one knew some major evil about the person in trouble.

There is no dichotomy between selfishness and good will among men.

Edited March 16, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Whoisjohngalt]

Kindness toward others, good will, benevolance proceed from an opposite code of morality than the anti-man, anti-self ethics of altruism - from the principle that man is an entity of a supreme value.

A man of self-esteem, uncorrupted by altruism, is a man who values human life - because he values his own life, because to him human being is a designation of honor. It is one's view of oneself that determines one's view of man and of human stature.

The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic - in revering living like entities they are revering their own life.

It is a mistake to equate any help with altruism and any motive for helping others with a motive demanded by altruism.

When no sacrifice is involved, rational man would render help, not as a duty, but out of loyality to the value of living human entities and to the human potential. In such situation one would properly refuse help only if one knew some major evil about the person in trouble.

There is no dichotomy between selfishness and good will among men.

Very nicely put.

[Galileo Blogs]

Very nicely put.

I echo this comment regarding Sophia's post. I think that explains why Americans are so charitable compared with peoples elsewhere. Sure, a good part of it is motivated by Christian altruism and even tax considerations, but it is also heavily motivated by goodwill, a goodwill that is the consequence of living egoistically and with enjoying the tremendous wealth that is the result of living in the system based on egoism, namely, capitalism.

Wealthy Americans can fund great libraries, great medical research institutions, or even give a dollar to a beggar in the name of the potential all free people have. I recall the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny buys dinner for a bum on her train. She saw the intelligence in his eyes and in the name of that potential, helped him out. Interestingly, he told her the key story behind the riddle that tormented her, "Who is John Galt?"

Edited March 16, 2007 by Galileo Blogs

[Moebius]

I liked what Sophia said, and it's pretty much the same values I got out of reading The Fountainhead.

What I don't understand is this - how does it logically follow that the way you treat a fellow man reflect how you value yourself?

Why is a man's view of himself necessarily determines ones view of his fellow man?

I like the sentiment, but is there a logical basis for it?

[BrassDragon]

I liked what Sophia said, and it's pretty much the same values I got out of reading The Fountainhead.

What I don't understand is this - how does it logically follow that the way you treat a fellow man reflect how you value yourself?

Why is a man's view of himself necessarily determines ones view of his fellow man?

I like the sentiment, but is there a logical basis for it?

A man's understanding of the nature of man will affect how he views himself fundamentally, and this understanding will be visible (i.e. reflect) in how he treats other men.

Furthermore, a man who understands and experiences self-esteem and the holds the benevolent universe premise (the two will probably go together) will treat other men as men of self-esteem. Men without self-esteem who hold the malevolent universe premise will treat other men accordingly.

This isn't a flushed-out explanation, but I hope this helps!

[Moebius]

A man's understanding of the nature of man will affect how he views himself fundamentally, and this understanding will be visible (i.e. reflect) in how he treats other men.

Furthermore, a man who understands and experiences self-esteem and the holds the benevolent universe premise (the two will probably go together) will treat other men as men of self-esteem. Men without self-esteem who hold the malevolent universe premise will treat other men accordingly.

Hm. Alright, but that's still not really a logical explanation.

Okay so a man's understanding of the nature of man will affect how he views himself fundamentally, sure. But I still can't connect the dot between that understanding and the way he treats other men.

And also what is the definition of a man who understands self-esteem? Why does it necessarily follow that self-esteem and a benevolent universe go hand in hand? And what if --and this is also my personal view-- I think the objective universe isn't necessarily benevolent nor malevolent? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by a benevolent universe...?

[BrassDragon]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "logically." If you are looking for a direct causal link, there is none. It is conceptually possible for a man to treat other men in a way that does not reflect how he values himself. I can't imagine a good scenario in which that happens.

The "benevolent universe premise" is a specific term used by Ayn Rand to denote a metaphysical value-judgment of the universe. Basically, you can't hold every bit of information that you could have gathered in your brain; you are forced to reduce things to their most important terms. Holding the benevolent universe premise means the good things about the universe are more important to you than the bad things. You view the universe as a place where man can and normally is successful, because man's failures and the "bad" stuff isn't an important concern. Someone may want to make amends to this explanation, as I don't have any reference material handy, but that's the basic idea.

Let us know if you have more questions.

[Moebius]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "logically." If you are looking for a direct causal link, there is none. It is conceptually possible for a man to treat other men in a way that does not reflect how he values himself. I can't imagine a good scenario in which that happens.

I see. So would it be correct to say that this is just a subjective view how how a man should act? Because I find it hard to believe that all self-confident man necessarily treats all fellow men the same way he values himself, in reality.

The "benevolent universe premise" is a specific term used by Ayn Rand to denote a metaphysical value-judgment of the universe. Basically, you can't hold every bit of information that you could have gathered in your brain; you are forced to reduce things to their most important terms. Holding the benevolent universe premise means the good things about the universe are more important to you than the bad things. You view the universe as a place where man can and normally is successful, because man's failures and the "bad" stuff isn't an important concern. Someone may want to make amends to this explanation, as I don't have any reference material handy, but that's the basic idea.

I agree with the first part of the premise, that we must reduce things to their most important terms. But why does there need to be a distinction along the lines of "good things" and "bad things" in the first place? And how does Rand define what's "good" and what's "bad"? Because it seems to me that in reality, obviously the "good things" exists along with the bad, and a man may or may not succeed, regardless of your outlook on the universe.

[softwareNerd]

I agree with most of the posts above, but since you're still not clear, I'll try a different formulation.

Benevolent Universe: The focus on the good -- assuming no Pollyannaism -- could be a manifestation benevolent universe premise. Strictly, the premise says that we can do stuff. In other words, we go not live in a world tormented by whimsical Gods, but in a rational world that we can understand, and where we can put that knowledge to work to achieve our ends. In other words, man is efficacious. We know that bad things can happen -- natural disasters and man-made -- but, we still retain the capacity to change things and overcome problems. The point of the premise is not that the universe has only good stuff in it, but rather that we have more than enough to work with, enough to enact our ends, in principle. (Check this earlier thread.)

Strangers: Just as one has a broad evaluation of the universe, one also has a broad evaluation of "people as such".

Suppose, you're in a crowd of people walking briskly to catch a plane and the guy in front of you drops something, but does not notice. Do you alert him to it? Do you shrug it off as "why bother"? Do you smirk, "what an idiot, to lose his stuff carelessly"? If one knew him and liked him or hated him, one might have one or the other of these responses. However, if he's a perfect stranger, then the way you react would typically reflect your evaluation of other people "in general".

Suppose you alert the person and he picks it up. Now, suppose he's a cruel, evil guy. Maybe you inadvertently put yourself in the (small) service to evil. How one acts toward strangers is largely a result of the evaluation you have which might be: "these (other) people are basically good" or "people are all idiots, I hate them all".

[Moebius]

Ah I see what you're saying now. Thanks a lot!