I know that we are free to help others if we desire because of our values.
Is there ever a case where we *should* (moral ought, not legal must) help
another person regardless of the benefit to ourselves.
As an example, if a situation presents itself such that we (and we alone) can
make a huge impact on someone’s life someone through a small cost or
inconvience to ourselves. Is there a moral *ought* that says we should
help them or just a premissive may if we want to.
Thanks!
There is no moral “ought” to help another person, period. If you desire to help that person then you are free to do so.
I know that we are free to help others if we desire because of our values. Is there ever a case where we *should* (moral ought, not legal must) help another person regardless of the benefit to ourselves.
Well, sure. If you saw a stranger drowning, and from the vantage point of complete safety you could save his life by throwing him a preserver, it would be immoral to arbitrarily not do so. Life has an inherent value. But, fortunately, we do not build our morality on cases such as these.
Life has an inherent value.
This is a misleading way to put it…
Rather, I would say that one would be immoral if life did not have some value to him. Therefore, it would be immoral for him to leave the drowing stranger so long as the cost is less than the value.
Is there ever a case where we *should* (moral ought, not legal must) help
another person regardless of the benefit to ourselves.
There is never a moral anything regardless of the benefit (or cost) to ourselves.
This is a misleading way to put it…
Knowing nothing at all about a stranger, what is “misleading” about assuming human life has an inherent value?
Rather, I would say that one would be immoral if life did not have some value to him. Therefore, it would be immoral for him to leave the drowing stranger so long as the cost is less than the value.
Please note how I set up the scenario in response to the original poster’s question. In regard to saving the stranger’s life by throwing a preserver, I said “it would be immoral to ARBITRARILY not do so.” [Emphasis added.] The inaction was arbitrary, costing the person nothing.
Yes, Stephen, I said your statment was misleading, not incorrect.
The word “inherent” suggusts “intrinsic” to someone not familiar with Objectivism, that is why it is misleading.
Yes, Stephen, I said your statment was misleading, not incorrect.
The word “inherent” suggusts “intrinsic” to someone not familiar with Objectivism, that is why it is misleading.
I said “Life has an inherent value.” I could just as easily have said “Life has an intrinsic value.” What exactly are you objecting to?
Afterall, life is the standard of all value, is it not? How much more inherent or intrinsic can you get?
The word “intrinsic” is not a bad word in and of itself. Intrincism is bad (or, at least, mistaken) as a philosophical doctrine, but that does not negate the proper use of the word “intrinsic.”
Stephen, I am confused about your answer. You are saying then that one should, if they analyze the situation at hand and see it is safe-help the person?
If this is so-then where is the stopping point? For example-somebody is hanging off the edge of a cliff…and there it is a pretty stable cliff ledge-however, you will have to bend over to help them, which has a risk of you falling-should you then as well?
Stephen, I am confused about your answer. You are saying then that one should, if they analyze the situation at hand and see it is safe-help the person?
There are three crucial points in the scenario I related in response to the original poster’s question.
(1) The person drowning was a complete stranger.
(2) There was absolutely no risk at all to you.
(3) You arbitrarily refused to throw the life preserver.
You chose to watch a complete stranger die – one for which you had absolutely no reason to wish dead – by arbitraily refusing to throw a life preserver even though there was absolutely no risk to your own safety at all. So, yes, in this particular circumstance , I can say, unequivocally and with complete confidence, that what you did was immoral. You should have thrown the drowning man the life preserver.
(When I say “you,” I do not, of course, mean you, JRoberts, personally.)
If this is so-then where is the stopping point? For example-somebody is hanging off the edge of a cliff…and there it is a pretty stable cliff ledge-however, you will have to bend over to help them, which has a risk of you falling-should you then as well?
This is a different circumstance. Once the assessment of risk becomes a factor, then the judgment must be made to balance the risk you are willing to take against the value to you of the person. If it were Adolph Hitler hanging on the cliff, I would walk away with a smile on my face. If it was the love of my life, I would risk my life, whatever it took.
I now understand, and agree with, your first point.
As to the second-are you saying that the moment risk is involved, it is not immoral?
I think he’s saying that if you assess the risk to be greater than the value the person is to you and choose to help them anyway, it is immoral.
I will add:
If you assess the risk as less than their value to you and choose not to help them, that is immoral as well.
I now understand, and agree with, your first point.
As to the second-are you saying that the momeny risk is involved, it is not immoral?
I am saying that once the situation is no longer arbitrary, then the criteria of judgment rules. It would not be immoral for me to walk away from Hitler hanging on the cliff, and it would be moral for me to greatly risk my life if the person was my great love.
I understand now. Thank you
I understand now. Thank you
You’re welcome.
I said “Life has an inherent value.” I could just as easily have said “Life has an intrinsic value.” What exactly are you objecting to?
But the two are not interchangable. “Intrinsic,” as it relates to value, refers to value as seperate from any valuer. Intrinsic value is an invalid concept.
But the two are not interchangable. “Intrinsic,” as it relates to value, refers to value as seperate from any valuer. Intrinsic value is an invalid concept.
"Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as “intrinsic,” in your sense of the term, namely: life.
– Ayn Rand, “Letters of Ayn Rand,” p. 561
in your sense of the term
In who’s sense of the term?
Their sense is not the common sense, obviously, as Rand differentiates it from the usual sense.
Thanks for the answers and the dialog. I’d like to post my summary of the thread in my own words to see if I have understood it correctly. According to Objectivism:
There is no moral “ought” for me to help another person, period.
If I desire to help someone then I am free to do so.
I am also free not to help someone if I desire not to help them.
The rational basis by which I would choose to help or not to help would be that I would choose to help if the value to me of helping the person is greater than the cost or risk to me of helping them.
Even if the person is a total stranger, another person’s life often has some value to us that is greater than the small cost of time or effort required to rescue someone in peril.
If the cost or risk to us is anything that is non-trivial, and the person is a total stranger then we should think twice about jeopardizing our own self-interests.
If the person is beloved and of great value to us we may be risk our very lives.
If the person is disliked, evil, or even just a rival in business allowing them to perish could be in our rational self-interest.
But the only principle to determine when to help and when not to help is our rational self-interest
Did I understand it correctly!?
Thanks!
In who’s sense of the term?
Their sense is not the common sense, obviously, as Rand differentiates it from the usual sense.
Obviously?
Richard, have you read the full context of the letter? That is the way to determine the sense and meaning. Now, it is possible that I have misunderstood that meaning – it would not be the first time I have ever made a mistake – so, after you read the full context of the letter feel free to point out my mistake to me. If you do indeed show me where I erred, I will thank you for that. But, at least, rather than just “obviously,” your statement of sense and meaning will be based on the actual content of the letter.
Did I understand it correctly!?
It all looks right to me. 