I am new here. There are many who are better equipped to answer this in an accurately Objectivist manner. However, in lieu of that, I shall take the opportunity to reason this through as far as I am currently able.
Starting with Existence leads to Value leads to Virtue.
You exist and are able to reason. Value is that which you require for your existence (including any emotional needs) - moving up the chain, you ultimately find all Values are ‘Life’. Virtue is acting in a manner designed to gain your Value by reason.
As long as you are not depriving another of their Value (ultimately their life) by force, or denying your own right to pursue your own Values (thus denying the value of Life) then you are acting ‘morally’. As such, I would conclude that an Objectivist view would be that allowing someone to die or not die is a matter of personal choice. That may sound callous, but consider:
If a man has a heart attack, not all onlookers will immediately leap to give him CPR; are those who do not immoral? No. They will make individual decisions based upon their expertise, and - ultimately - their personal view.
What if the victim is the man who murdered your spouse?
What if he is a thief?
What if he is an expert surgeon?
What if he is your favourite composer?
More interestingly, what if he is known to be a bomber who will detonate immediately on his revival?
A single rule on morality fails here.
In my own case I would think:
- If I believed I had a good chance of saving the person’s life my self-esteem might be enhanced by doing so. This is not the same as a sense of duty or social conscience - merely one of Value and utility.
(Before you object and mention healthcare workers: even ambulance drivers and nurses are driven by Values; most would give up their jobs if they won the Lottery. Those who would not consider their self-esteem and Values implicitly linked to saving lives. I am grateful they exist, as they are grateful that I exist and can produce entertainment.)
- If I considered the victim part of my Value structure (say, my spouse), I would be compelled to act as surely as if I were starving and sought food.
If one implicitly believes inaction Immoral, then the victim would implicitly control my volition; unthinkable to an Objectivist view as it goes against the principle of Virtue (pursuit of ones Life/Value).
Adding a state compulsion would merely compound the problem.
If, however, I had instigated the situation leading to the unfortunate’s demise, or led directly to it through negligence, I would conclude that it was an act of force against the fundamental rights of the victim. As such it would be a matter for the state, for law and the penal system.
Some believe the right to Life always trumps the right to Comfort. A man banging on my door demanding my food because he is starving does not have a right to it. Need is not right.
More interesting to me is whether Objectivists would consider my feeding this man actively Immoral (as I am giving away my Value for another, denying his right to stand on his own two feet… etc).
Now for the caveats: I am very new to this way of thinking - I am certain I am guilty of faulty reasoning somewhere in this argument. I thank you for the opportunity to use your case to learn more.