Moral Dilemma About "cooties"

Ethics
21

BW

You are engaging in troll-like behavior now. Spewing spurious personal accusations of evasion and blanking out - and attributing emotional motivations instead of reasoning as the cause of these supposed behaviors - is NOT tolerated on this forum. Your question HAS been answered MULTIPLE times now. Fred had the best answer for you: that your premise is a FALSE ALTERNATIVE - ie it is a LOGICAL FALLACY to begin with, and is thus IRRATIONAL.

This is the same false alternative as presented in the saying “Better red than dead”. People spewed this scenario - saying that man’s choices were either choosing communism or choosing death. But those are NOT the only two alternatives available to man. Other alternatives are BLANKED OUT - specifically LIBERTY - which is what made that example - and YOURS - FALLACIOUS.

So it is YOU who have engaged in EVASION - and you have done so in order to create a situation in which man is DAMNED - as you EXPLICITLY put it - no matter what action he takes. THAT suggests a VERY malevolent view of reality.

Now I and others have politely tried to suggest that the premises which make you proceed from such a logical fallacy need to be addressed and corrected. Instead of even attempting such introspection, you have added to your first logical fallacy another logical fallacy - ad hom. Such behavior will NOT continue here from you. Consider this your first and LAST warning.

Now, your demand that we choose an ethical solution to an ILLOGICAL statement instead of identifying and DISMISSING that logical fallacy, demonstrates that REALITY is not your concern here. It appears your concern is to try to find some “flaw” in the ethics of Objectivism so that you may then dismiss it. Sorry - aint gonna happen. So you might as well either accept that reality - or move on now.

–

To tommy - your analogy is flawed. A satellite maker plans for the things he believes are possible as well as likely. He does NOT plan for the improbable.

Ex - he does NOT plan for the space shuttle to crash into the satellite, and thus reinforce the sat. to withstand that impact.

He does NOT plan for aliens to take control of the sat. and use it to conquer the planet

He does NOT plan for the rocket to careen wildly out of control and thus build a secondary rocket system to take over.

ETC ETC ad nausium.

IF your fantasy sat builder even attempted to ‘sketch out’ responses to all these and more IMPROBABLE scenarios, the sat would NEVER get built. Not only that, but no one could afford to build such a sat. In other words, focusing on such absurd scenarios would waste his time and his money (ie his LIFE) and the productiveness of the satellite would NEVER be achieved.

THAT is the WASTE being referenced here. I am SORRY you fail to grasp that fact.

22

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.

As a business woman who has successfully realized dozens of new ventures (and who is also married to a scientist), I know that is NOT how it is done.

What I actually do is run a risk/benefit analysis of the most likely outcomes and, if the undertaking seems feasible, act to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks.

I never try to cover all the possibilities, because that is impossible and unrealistic and a waste of precious time and effort.

A philosophy has to provide a way to counter any situation that can possibly arise.

No it doesn’t. No philosophy – including Objectivism – provides omniscience.

23

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?

It’s from the Q&A following Miss Rand’s 1968 Ford Hall Forum talk.

24

It’s from the Q&A following Miss Rand’s 1968 Ford Hall Forum talk.

I just listened to the Q & A and I am quite surprised to say that you are essentially correct. I really do not understand the basis for what Miss Rand said. The context was already established that any action taken would be “right” in that morality would not apply. The only justification I can conceive of in not taking the other’s life is that in doing so she could not live with herself knowing what she had done. But, if that were the case, how could she live with herself doing it ten times over for the sake of her husband? Unless then she thought that she would not live with herself afterwards, and otherwise would not have wanted to live without her husband. But this is getting to be a rather complex scenario I am fabricating. The answer is not obvious to me.

Either I am missing something crucial here or these extemporaneous remarks might have been reconsidered upon reflection.

25

The context was already established that any action taken would be “right” in that morality would not apply.

(This is not in reply to any particular person, but a number of recent posts from various people.)

A morality is a set of principles to guide one’s actions. Whether is it done consciously or subconsciously, a morality is a response to the circumstances of one’s life. It is therefore inevitable that one will face new situations previously not included in his morality, and will have to explicitly or implicitly adopt moral principles or habits for dealing with such situations. Unless one is insane, these new moral principles will not be completely arbitrary, but based upon more fundamental explicitly or implicitly held values – such as selfishness, altruism, or hedonism.

Because a lifeboat scenario is an extreme case of an unprecedented situation, it is likely that no *specific* moral principles will exist to guide one’s actions – however it is incorrect to say that the actions one takes in such a scenario are outside of morality. All human actions have a moral valuation because all human actions are initiated in the pursuit of some value – and all human values are either pro or anti-life. Furthermore, in no situation, can we say that the rights of an innocent human being are forfeited. The basic principles morality and individual rights can be applied within the context of any particular situation – and I would challenge anyone to find a case in which selfishness or individual rights are not absolute.

26

Because a lifeboat scenario is an extreme case of an unprecedented situation, it is likely that no *specific* moral principles will exist to guide one’s actions – however it is incorrect to say that the actions one takes in such a scenario are outside of morality.

But that is just what Ayn Rand does say about lifeboat situations. In the Q & A that we were were discussing, she says, in regard to lifeboat situations, that “morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right.”

As she points out, morality is dependent on metaphysics, on the nature of the world within which he lives, and man does not live on a lifeboat where the choice is his life or the life of another. Morality is not to be taken out of the context from which it is derived.

27

As she points out, morality is dependent on metaphysics, on the nature of the world within which he lives, and man does not live on a lifeboat where the choice is his life or the life of another. Morality is not to be taken out of the context from which it is derived.

On what possible basis can man act then? He has to make a decision based on some criteria, doesn’t he? The basic facts of existence to not change in an emergency – man has to consider the facts, and make a decision based on his values. What other choice does he have?

Here is an example Ayn Rand used: you are trapped in the wilderness and facing starvation, when you come upon a locked and isolated cabin. Is it immoral, amoral, or moral to break in and take the food? Are the rights of the cabin’s owner invalidated by your breaking in? Obviously not. The basic principles still guide one’s action in such a situation: breaking in is justified because you valuing your life, but respect for other’s rights requires that your compensate the owner.

28

On what possible basis can man act then? He has to make a decision based on some criteria, doesn’t he? The basic facts of existence to not change in an emergency – man has to consider the facts, and make a decision based on his values. What other choice does he have?

We are talking about a lifeboat situation where only one man can survive, so he either acts to maintain his own life by taking the life of the other, or he forfeits his own. What moral code could you possibly apply to such a situation? (Rhetorical question.) This is why we base our morality on the nature of the world within which we live, not on a lifeboat.

Here is an example Ayn Rand used: you are trapped in the wilderness and facing starvation, when you come upon a locked and isolated cabin.  Is it immoral, amoral, or moral to break in and take the food?  Are the rights of the cabin’s owner invalidated by your breaking in?  Obviously not.  The basic principles still guide one’s action in such a situation: breaking in is justified  because you valuing your life, but respect for other’s rights requires that your compensate the owner.

That is an entirely different situation. The lifeboat situation Miss Rand discussed had an irrevocable consequence, the ending of a life. In such a situation you cannot simply “compensate the owner” after the deed is done. There is no moral guide. It is either your life, or his.

29

We are talking about a lifeboat situation where only one man can survive, so he either acts to maintain his own life by taking the life of the other, or he forfeits his own. What moral code could you possibly apply to such a situation? (Rhetorical question.)

But it’s a necessary question, since any action a man takes must be based on some sort of values. What other criteria for judgment is there, other than which action best achieves (or preserves) one’s values? In other words, “moral evaluation” is implicit in the very notion of volitional action.

30

But it’s a necessary question, since any action a man takes must be based on some sort of values. What other criteria for judgment is there, other than which action best achieves (or preserves) one’s values? In other words, “moral evaluation” is implicit in the very notion of volitional action.

But morality is not some out-of-context absolute. The actions of a man in this life-or-death situation affect not only himself, but the life of an innocent other. In dealing with others morality teaches us that we must respect their individual rights, and the ultimate source of those rights is the right to one’s own life. How can morality tell us how to act when the situation itself – the innocent person’s life or your own – removes the very basis for morality? This “lifeboat” situation is an anomaly, a unique, bizarre situation where the metaphysics has placed us outside the realm where morality applies, where the basis for a moral code to guide our actions in relation to others has been removed, i.e., where life as a standard of value and respect for that life in our dealings with others, cannot be achieved. That is why morality is based on the metaphysical nature of the world within which we live – not on “lifeboat” metaphysics – and that is why either course of action – your life or the life of the other – can be considered to be a “right” course of action.

31

That is why morality is based on the metaphysical nature of the world within which we live – not on “lifeboat” metaphysics – and that is why either course of action – your life or the life of the other – can be considered to be a “right” course of action.

Are you saying that in this situation to die for the sake of the other person–no matter who it is–is a right course of action? Wouldn’t you try to sustain your life even if it meant killing the other person? I think I understand what you mean when you say that this situation is outside the juristiction of morality. It is because morality is based on the idea of life–without life there could be no other values. Life preceedes morality, in effect, because it is the standard of morality. The metaphysical fact of life and its nature as non-dependant on other’s lives cause us to create a selfish morality. I would agree that this decision has as much moral relevance as any other metaphysically given, such as rock at point B as opposed to rock at point A. But, I believe that GreedyCapitalist has a point. I don’t think the decsion can be left up to chance. You still must choose his life or yours–you cant evade that fact. While you can’t be held morally responsible for your choice, you still must make a choice based on standards because you are and value your existence and you know that you do. To do otherwise would be to evade the context in which the decision is made–that is–your consciousness.

Does that make sense or should I clarify?

32

Are you saying that in this situation to die for the sake of the other person–no matter who it is–is a right course of action?  Wouldn’t you try to sustain your life even if it meant killing the other person?

Personally, yes, I would. Ayn Rand, however, said that she probably would not. I do not know her reasons for thinking that way – perhaps, as I previously speculated, she thought she could not live with herself if she killed an innocent person – but, regardless, morality does not pertain and either course of action would be “right.”

I think I understand what you mean when you say that this situation is outside the juristiction of morality… But, I believe that GreedyCapitalist has a point.  I don’t think the decsion can be left up to chance.

Since I have not argued that the decision should be left to chance, I do not know who you are arguing with about that.

You still must choose his life or yours–you cant evade that fact. While you can’t be held morally responsible for your choice, you still must make a choice based on …

Whatever you base your choice on, morality does not pertain to the lifeboat situation.

33

I just had this thought regarding the recent thread about the immortal robot: just as no values are possible to a non-living being, no action is possible to a living being that does not aid or hinder its life. For humans, as for all animals, all actions have a positive of negative impact on their life.

The only question then, is epistemological, not metaphysical: is it possible to make a moral evaluation prior to every non-random human action? The answer is yes – if a choice is made in relation to some value(s), it must have a relation to one’s life, since values as such can only be derived from one’s life. Attempting to deny the tie between volitional actions and values is just as impossible as attempting to prove that a non-living being (i.e. the immortal robot) could have values.

34

I just had this thought …

You keep saying the same thing in slightly different words, but you never address my points of criticism. One final try, in the hope that you will directly address this point. You frame the issue as if there is just a single person and ignore the fact that the issue has to do with taking the life of an innocent other. I am sure you agree that initiating the use of physical force against another is immoral, and intentionally taking the life of an innocent person via that force is immoral almost beyond words. Then, ask yourself if, as you state, a “moral evaluation prior to every non-random action” is possible, in all imaginable circumstances, then how can a “moral evaluation” lead to an immoral outcome (the taking of an innocent life)? In other words, how can morality contradict itself? The answer is, of course, it cannot, which is yet another reason why morality does not pertain to such a “lifeboat” situation.

35

Since I have not argued that the decision should be left to chance, I do not know who you are arguing with about that.

It almost sounded like that’s what you were implicitly suggesting.

I am sure you agree that initiating the use of physical force against another is immoral, and intentionally taking the life of an innocent person via that force is immoral almost beyond words.

The entire situation however is a case of moral essentials. Considered heirarchically, your life must take precedence over the life of any other man. Its as if, comparatively, my life is like the axiom of identity and his life is like the corallary of causality–without identity, causality is not possible. Without life, the above evaluation is not possible. The essential in this situation would be life or non-life. If I were to place a higher value on the other mans life, it would turn ethics on its head. Stephen are you saying it would be a purely metaphysical decision? Simply to be or not to be? I agree with you that one cannot be morally judged after making a decision, but implict in the choice of any volitional being is a standard by which to choose. That standard is morality. You cannot seperate the two.

Let me add however, this situation seems extremely implausible because of mans ability to solve problems. I cannot even concieve of a situation where I could be absolutely sure that it is me or him, and without knowing that I could not condemn another man to death.

36

Considered heirarchically, your life must take precedence over the life of any other man.

Regardless of context? Under all possible conditions and circumstances?

Without life, the above evaluation is not possible.

And it is only on the basis of life that we can form a moral code.

I agree with you that one cannot be morally judged after making a decision …

You mean morality pertained for him, but not for us?

37

Regardless of context? Under all possible conditions and circumstances?

No, but in the context in which all other moral factors have been negated because of the metaphysical facts of reality.

And it is only on the basis of life that we can form a moral code.

Whose life?

You mean morality pertained for him, but not for us?

Are you trying to say that I’m being subjective? My life is worth more to me than a random stranger’s life to me. Is there any other way to analyze that? Should I try to maximize the achievement of value, ie more people value him than do value me so I should let him live?

38

Are you trying to say that I’m being subjective?

Not that you are being subjective, but rather that the position you are advocating would make morality subjective.

My life is worth more to me than a random stranger’s life to me.

Regardless of context? Under any and all possible circumstances?

Is there any other way to analyze that?

Yes. For instance, if you were dying and you knew that you had only one minute to live, would you kill that innocent stranger in this lifeboat situation in order to live for one more minute? How about for ten seconds? What about for a millisecond of life? The overall point is that yes, Man’s life is the standard of morality, and your own life is its purpose, but we base our morality on the metaphysics of the world within which man lives, not on the metaphysics of lifeboat situations. Ayn Rand stated that morality does not pertain in that lifeboat situation, because in such a situation one cannot adhere to Man’s life as a standard. It is only upon life that a moral code can be established.

39

Stephen: “How can morality tell us how to act when the situation itself – the innocent person’s life or your own – removes the very basis for morality?..that is why either course of action – your life or the life of the other – can be considered to be a “right” course of action.”

Strictly speaking, if the situation has removed the basis of morality, neither course of action would be “right”. What’s more, if morality is a guide to action, and morality doesn’t apply in this situation, the appropriate course for an Objectivist would be to do nothing. Since his life is no longer his highest value, the Objectivist has no basis for taking any course of action.

Eddie

40

Eddie, that was precisely what Kant said man should do in that situation–nothing. Generally, Kant saying something is right leads me to believe that the opposite is true.