I had been thinking about posting a “moral scenario” thread when I saw another one on here. So I’ve been inspired to add my own, hope it doesn’t crowd things too much.
Here is the situation:
One year ago the person whom you love most in this world contracted the rare and fatal disease called “cooties.” While some treatments have been found that can prolong the life of the person with it (up to but not beyond a year and a half) there has not yet been found a cure, until now. A local scientist has announced that he has discovered a cure for cooties that was successful on his pet monkey. By the nature of the disease we know that such a cure will absolutely work on humans.
You go to this local scientist’s house and tell him of your problem, you ask him for the cure. The scientists tells you: “I’m sorry but I can’t help you. You see I worked on the cure because my wife came down with cooties and I have only one dose left. If she doesn’t get the cure she will be dead in two months. I could make more but it will take me a full year to produce more serum. Unfortunately this is due to the fourth state of the process where I must soak widget-root in Glenlivet for one year to get the proper chemical compound. There is no way to speed up the process.”
The problem here as I see it is: do you respect the property rights of the scientist and let your one true love die, or do you take the cure and seemingly abandon reason?
I know what I would probably do, but I’m just wondering what others thought of this?
Oh, I’m sorry, wrong “moral dilemma”. The real answer is easy: You quit your job, drop every other commitment you had for the next year, and offer to help the scientist in any way you can 24-7 to help speed up the process or otherwise make another dose before your wife dies.
What else would you do? Rob or kill the only man who understands how to save your beloved? Not rob the man and therefore sit around and wait for your supposed “one true love” to die? I think this dilemma nicely shows how lifeboat scenarios are completely separated from reality. To quote Leonard Peikoff:
A social psychologist from Harvard…has devised a test to measure a person’s level of moral reasoning…Here is a typical example. “Your spouse is dying from a rare cancer, and doctors believe a drug recently discovered by the town pharmacist may provide a cure. The pharmacist, however, charges $2000 for the drug (which costs only $200 to make). You can’t afford the drug and can’t raise the money.”
Observe what moral lessons a student would absorb from the statement of the problem alone. Morality does not pertain to normal situations, it is not concerned with how to live, he learns, but with how to meet disaster, death, terminal cancer. The obstacle to his values, he learns, is greed, the greed of the pharmacist who is trying to exploit him by charging ten times the cost of the product…The case is simple: senseless greed on the part of a callous investor, and what do you do about it?
If a person is to live in association with others, rights must be respected. Otherwise, it would lead to chaos. In your particular situation, it may advantageous to you in the short-term, but the fact that you have violated that rights of others gives others the right violate your rights. Do you think the scientist in question would lie silent after you have robbed him? Would be able to live with the fact that you willfully destroyed the life of a human being? Would you like to live in a society where anyone can walk into your house and kill you and your lover and you cannot protest as you yourself are a violator of rights?
… I think this dilemma nicely shows how lifeboat scenarios are completely separated from reality. To quote Leonard Peikoff:
I understand what Peikoff is getting at: don’t base your morality on the exceptional situation. At the same time, this still avoids the quesion of what to do in “lifeboat” or other extereme situations.
Situations like: do you use a superweapon that will kill innocent civilians as well as soldiers to end a war early and prevent an even greater number of casualties on both sides? You know, like we did with Japan.
Or, do you stop an air-raid on one of your cities and thus let your enemies know you’ve broken their cryptological codes and can read their secrects? Or do you let it burn like Churchill did to Coventry?
How about if your country is fracturing and to help hold it together you find you must violate some of your nation’s most cherished laws? Lincoln did this during the Civil War when he declared martial law and suspend habeas corpus to keep the North in line.
These situations may be rare and exceptoinal but THEY STILL HAPPEN and a rational morality MUST deal with them in some way.
I understand what Peikoff is getting at: don’t base your morality on the exceptional situation. At the same time, this still avoids the quesion of what to do in “lifeboat” or other extereme situations.
Situations like: do you use a superweapon that will kill innocent civilians as well as soldiers to end a war early and prevent an even greater number of casualties on both sides? You know, like we did with Japan.
Or, do you stop an air-raid on one of your cities and thus let your enemies know you’ve broken their cryptological codes and can read their secrects? Or do you let it burn like Churchill did to Coventry?
How about if your country is fracturing and to help hold it together you find you must violate some of your nation’s most cherished laws? Lincoln did this during the Civil War when he declared martial law and suspend habeas corpus to keep the North in line.
These situations may be rare and exceptoinal but THEY STILL HAPPEN and a rational morality MUST deal with them in some way.
In war-like situations, a country should do what it thinks will end the war early. You can’t nuke whole countries to end the war but if there is no other way, then one has to. A war is an emergency which can mean the death of a country. It would not be wrong to suspend some of the fundamental rights until the war is over provided you are on the right side. Lincoln at that time had to suspend habeas corpus because without taking such steps, the war and consequently slavery would not have ended.
But why should the government be given such exclusive powers and not other people? A government’s job is to protect individual rights. It has to take certain steps to ensure that those rights are not violated, even if it itself has to suspend some not all, fundamental rights for the time being. But government has no right to pass acts like the Patriot Act. The world is not in a war-like situation.
The real answer is easy: You quit your job, drop every other commitment you had for the next year, and offer to help the scientist in any way you can 24-7 to help speed up the process or otherwise make another dose before your wife dies.
There was a movie made based on an essentially similar premise: Lorenzo’s Oil, with Susan Sarandon and Nick Nolte. I believe it was based on a true story.
Incidentally, when people attack the profits of drug companies, they should keep in mind that with lower profitability they will have even less incentive then they already do to find the cures for rare or exotic diseases.
There was a movie made based on an essentially similar premise: Lorenzo’s Oil, with Susan Sarandon and Nick Nolte. I believe it was based on a true story.
Incidentally, when people attack the profits of drug companies, they should keep in mind that with lower profitability they will have even less incentive then they already do to find the cures for rare or exotic diseases.
Fred Weiss
I wasn’t trying to adress some “greed” issue where one party is cast as the bad guy. I was trying to address an issue where you’re damned if you do or don’t.
I understand what Peikoff is getting at: don’t base your morality on the exceptional situation. At the same time, this still avoids the question of what to do in “lifeboat” or other extreme situations.
Situations like: do you use a superweapon that will kill innocent civilians as well as soldiers to end a war early and prevent an even greater number of casualties on both sides? You know, like we did with Japan.
Or, do you stop an air-raid on one of your cities and thus let your enemies know you’ve broken their cryptological codes and can read their secrets? Or do you let it burn like Churchill did to Coventry?
How about if your country is fracturing and to help hold it together you find you must violate some of your nation’s most cherished laws? Lincoln did this during the Civil War when he declared martial law and suspend habeas corpus to keep the North in line.
These situations may be rare and exceptional but THEY STILL HAPPEN and a rational morality MUST deal with them in some way.
But will they happen to YOU?
Today you will have to choose whether to get out of bed and when. You will have to choose what you will do today. Every second you will have to choose what to pay attention to and what to ignore, whether to form certain conclusions based on what you see and think about, and whether you will act on your conclusions.
I GUARANTEE you will NOT have to decide on whether to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy nation, whether keeping secrets is more important than saving innocent civilians, or whether to keep Virginia from seceding from the US.
Since that is the case, you might find Objectivism of value for living YOUR life.
Today you will have to choose whether to get out of bed and when. You will have to choose what you will do today. Every second you will have to choose what to pay attention to and what to ignore, whether to form certain conclusions based on what you see and think about, and whether you will act on your conclusions.
I GUARANTEE you will NOT have to decide on whether to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy nation, whether keeping secrets is more important than saving innocent civilians, or whether to keep Virginia from seceding from the US.
Since that is the case, you might find Objectivism of value for living YOUR life.
They will not happen to me and they will not happen to you. But they can or will happen to somebody. How is he to apply morality then? How will Objectivism be applicable to him then? He cannot make arbitrary decisions at that point of time. Objectivism will be of value to my life but how will it be of any value to a person caught in a lifeboat situation. He cannot act on faith or whims or feelings at that time.
I wasn’t trying to adress some “greed” issue where one party is cast as the bad guy. I was trying to address an issue where you’re damned if you do or don’t.
And I was trying to address the possibility that the only alternatives aren’t to steal the cure or do without it - as someone else had sensibly suggested. But you are apparently intent on creating a “dogs fighting over the last bone in existence” scenario, whether that has anything to do with reality or not.
They will not happen to me and they will not happen to you. But they can or will happen to somebody. How is he to apply morality then? How will Objectivism be applicable to him then? He cannot make arbitrary decisions at that point of time. Objectivism will be of value to my life but how will it be of any value to a person caught in a lifeboat situation. He cannot act on faith or whims or feelings at that time.
I suggest being realistic and selfish.
Living YOUR OWN life is a full-time job with decisions to be made every second. Your happiness and success depend on what YOU choose to do and nobody else can, or ought to, choose for you. What you think Truman or Lincoln or Churchill ought to do will not make any difference – except as a game for leisure moments – to you or the world.
By focusing on “lifeboat cases” you are wasting precious time and brain power on situations that will never happen and neglecting the only real life you will ever have.
They will not happen to me and they will not happen to you. But they can or will happen to somebody. How is he to apply morality then? How will Objectivism be applicable to him then? He cannot make arbitrary decisions at that point of time. Objectivism will be of value to my life but how will it be of any value to a person caught in a lifeboat situation. He cannot act on faith or whims or feelings at that time.
Thank you, that’s what I was trying to get at. I may never be in a passanger plane crash and have to resort to canabalism to survive; but it’s not like that’s never happened to anyone before.
The REAL question here is WHY you are interested in situations which are bizarely improbable. What is the PURPOSE of your line of questioning? TO WHAT END do you pursue such scenarios? Or are you preparing for the day that you WILL possibly crash in a plane and have to resort to canabalism.
If that is your premise - that one needs to know how to properly act in such absurdly unlikely situations - then there are a TON of other EQUALLY unlikely scenarios that you should be planning for as well. IF your premise is that they must be anticipated and planned for, then you can not stop at just ONE of them. According to such a principle, you must properly plan for ANY and ALL of them - no matter HOW ridiculous or improbable they are.
Of course, as Betsy rightly points out, the time you WASTE planning for all these absurd situations is forever LOST to you - time you could and SHOULD be using to plan for your LIFE and the LIKELY events you WILL have to deal with. In other words, you are WASTING your LIFE here - your TIME here - with this perverse focus. Not only that, but you are wasting OURS as well.
So the question remains - WHY are you wasting your life? WHY are you focusing on these improbable scenarios and NOT on what it takes to live your life and achieve your values and goals? What END do you think you are going to achieve with such a focus? What is your purpose in focusing on ‘the no win situation’? Is that how you see life? Is that it? Do you consider reality to be malevolent - and thus you MUST prepare for these situations because existence is such that they WILL happen to you?
Is THAT the reality you are trying to prepare yourself to live in? If it is, I would suggest you check a LOT of your premises. And if that is NOT the reality you anticipate having to face, then I suggest you RADICALLY shift your focus - shift it to the reality you DO anticipate having to deal with, instead of miring yourself in the malevolent one - the one in which, no matter what action you take you are “damned” - “damned if you do and damned if you dont”
Life is not damnation.
Put simply, as the quote goes: “I don’t believe in the no-win situation”. You shouldn’t either.
The REAL question here is WHY you are interested in situations which are bizarely improbable. What is the PURPOSE of your line of questioning? TO WHAT END do you pursue such scenarios? Or are you preparing for the day that you WILL possibly crash in a plane and have to resort to canabalism.
If that is your premise - that one needs to know how to properly act in such absurdly unlikely situations - then there are a TON of other EQUALLY unlikely scenarios that you should be planning for as well. IF your premise is that they must be anticipated and planned for, then you can not stop at just ONE of them. According to such a principle, you must properly plan for ANY and ALL of them - no matter HOW ridiculous or improbable they are.
Of course, as Betsy rightly points out, the time you WASTE planning for all these absurd situations is forever LOST to you - time you could and SHOULD be using to plan for your LIFE and the LIKELY events you WILL have to deal with. In other words, you are WASTING your LIFE here - your TIME here - with this perverse focus. Not only that, but you are wasting OURS as well.
So the question remains - WHY are you wasting your life? WHY are you focusing on these improbable scenarios and NOT on what it takes to live your life and achieve your values and goals? What END do you think you are going to achieve with such a focus? What is your purpose in focusing on ‘the no win situation’? Is that how you see life? Is that it? Do you consider reality to be malevolent - and thus you MUST prepare for these situations because existence is such that they WILL happen to you?
Is THAT the reality you are trying to prepare yourself to live in? If it is, I would suggest you check a LOT of your premises. And if that is NOT the reality you anticipate having to face, then I suggest you RADICALLY shift your focus - shift it to the reality you DO anticipate having to deal with, instead of miring yourself in the malevolent one - the one in which, no matter what action you take you are “damned” - “damned if you do and damned if you dont”
Life is not damnation.
Put simply, as the quote goes: “I don’t believe in the no-win situation”. You shouldn’t either.
When businessmen plan a new venture or the scientists send a satellite into an orbit, they take into account each and every possibility that could happen. They could spend their time improving the quality of their satellites or projects but they don’t. Because such situations will 99.9% of the time will not happen but they might happen. Are they wasting their time?
A philosophy has to provide a way to counter any situation that can possibly arise. Objectivism is the most rational, in fact the only rational and best philosophy that I have ever encountered and will stay so forever. However this does not mean that it does not have to answer for such situations. In life, we have to plan for a number of improbable situations. We do not need to have every detail chalked out. We do not have to think and plan for every possible situation. But we do need to have a basic set of rules which prevent us from arbitrary and immoral action lest we repent it throughout our lives.
The focus or the primary goal, of my life is not to plan for improbable scenarios, just like the focus of a businessman’s project is not the loss he might encounter through unlikely situations but the profit he will gain if everything goes according to plan.
I am not preparing to live in a malevolent universe because the universe is not malevolent. Doing so would be suicidal. Nevertheless, it is always better to have basic guidelines chalked out for malevolent situations.
The REAL question here is WHY you are interested in situations which are bizarely improbable.
No, the REAL question is: why are you all so determined to blank them out? Why does this line of questioning frighten you so that you must evade any answers?
… this does not mean that it does not have to answer for such situations. In life, we have to plan for a number of improbable situations. We do not need to have every detail chalked out. We do not have to think and plan for every possible situation. But we do need to have a basic set of rules which prevent us from arbitrary and immoral action lest we repent it throughout our lives… I am not preparing to live in a malevolent universe because the universe is not malevolent. Doing so would be suicidal. Nevertheless, it is always better to have basic guidelines chalked out for malevolent situations.
This seems pretty clear to me, so why don’t the rest of you get it?
These situations may be rare and exceptoinal but THEY STILL HAPPEN and a rational morality MUST deal with them in some way.
But Objectivism does deal with such situations — by identifying them as outside of the realm of morality.
In an emergency life-threatening situation of the kind under discussion, there is no morally right or wrong choice to make. Aside perhaps from blanking out the reality of the situation, whatever one chooses to do under the circumstances is moral.
On 9/11, some people sought to escape from and flee the World Trade Center. Others went into the building to save the lives of those inside. Who did the “moral” thing? Answer: All of them.
(Miss Rand once said, in response to a lifeboat-type scenario presented to her in a Q&A, that she herself would probably not kill an innocent person to save her life — but that she’d kill ten innocent people to save her husband’s life.)
You’re free to define for yourself what YOU would do under such circumstances, and you can rest knowing that, morally, you are 100% in the clear. But don’t look to a rational code of ethics for guidance on what to do in such situations — and, whatever you do, don’t confuse these questions and their possible answers with real-life moral principles.
(Miss Rand once said, in response to a lifeboat-type scenario presented to her in a Q&A, that she herself would probably not kill an innocent person to save her life — but that she’d kill ten innocent people to save her husband’s life.)
That does not sound right. Do you have a reference for this?
