I have a real problem with this line of thinking as it perpetuates the idea that value, and ethics still exists in situations where the meta-ethical basis, i.e. the founding need for ethics has been removed. If the problem is so impossibly constrained that reason is out the window, then so is ethics. There is no “should” in these situations. Anything goes.
Your line of thinking plays right into trap of such senarios.
Now THIS strikes home as to something I was missing!
But if we both respect each others right to live as well as our own, what other rational solution is there than to draw straws?
To live, without straws attached. I don’t understand what reasoning leads one to embrace a 50% chance of death over a closer to 100% chance of life.
Here’s my answer. If I was morally certain that someone had to die for the other to live, that the death would not be pointless anyhow, and the other person weren’t a loved one, I’d quickly kill him in order to survive. And hope he didn’t come to that same realization earlier than I did. Would you not do the same thing? If not, why not?
What a disturbing thing to say. Would I do the same thing? No. Why not? Because that would be murder. I will not choke the life out of someone whose only crime is having the misfortune of being trapped with me in a disabled sub. I value my own survival, but not at any cost.
So you would rather both of you die than one of you live?
What a disturbing thing to say. Would I do the same thing? No. Why not? Because that would be murder.
What a disturbing thing to say. You have that little interest in your own life? You are willing to sacrifice your life for that of a stranger? Why would you do that?
I would just fix the submersible… or at least die trying.
To live, without straws attached. I don’t understand what reasoning leads one to embrace a 50% chance of death over a closer to 100% chance of life.
You have to realize that the scenario says nothing about which of the two of you is stronger or in a better position to kill the other. Being the first to attack certainly gives you an advantage, but depending on the size, reflexes, etc. of the other guy, your chance of winning will still be somewhere between 0 and 100%, with no guarantee of being close to the latter. If he is a 7-foot tower of muscles and you’re a 12-year-old little girl, you might be better off trying to mooch him into giving his life for “a cause greater than self,” or whatever. Whatever the case, since the scenario disallows it, you won’t be dealing with the other guy using reason–so all you are left with is force and intellectual fraud.
What a disturbing thing to say. Would I do the same thing? No. Why not? Because that would be murder. I will not choke the life out of someone whose only crime is having the misfortune of being trapped with me in a disabled sub. I value my own survival, but not at any cost.
Your options are
kill the other guy and live
be killed by the other guy and die
die alongside the other guy
50+% chance of death, 50- % chance of life, as you draw straws
How the hell arent you gonna choose “kill the other guy and live”? You say you value your own survival, but still you would choose an action that is detrimental to your survival? If you, and another person “have the misfortune” of being trapped in a disabled sub, then why the hell would you value his life as much as your own? Actually you value the other persons life more than your own, as you have no way of knowing if he will kill you, but you know you wont kill him.
Yes, the fact that you killed the other guy may leave psychological scars and you may need some time to get over it, as killing another man is not something that a man does normally, but at least you would live.
What a disturbing thing to say. You have that little interest in your own life? You are willing to sacrifice your life for that of a stranger? Why would you do that?
I am not willing to sacrifice my life for a stranger, but I am not willing to sacrifice his life for mine either. I wasnt aware that when faced with death, Objectivists behave like savages. That is good to know. Were I ever unfortunate enough to be in such a scenario, I would hope my sub-mate thought the way you, and others here, do. I wouldnt murder you to insure my survival, but I would have no problem killing you if you came at me first.
I am not willing to sacrifice my life for a stranger, but I am not willing to sacrifice his life for mine either. I wasnt aware that when faced with death, Objectivists behave like savages. That is good to know. Were I ever unfortunate enough to be in such a scenario, I would hope my sub-mate thought the way you, and others here, do. I wouldnt murder you to insure my survival, but I would have no problem killing you if you came at me first.
But dont you get it, that there are three alternatives:
You live, he dies
He lives, you die
You both die
Howcome you dont choose the first one? How can you claim that his life is of equal value to you than your own? What good does it do to you, that you die and he lives?
Since it’s a “life boat” situation, Objectivism isn’t going to give you an answer. (Check out what Rand said about a similar situation.)
This scenario reminds me of an anecdote. I’ve forgotten much, so it’s probably a little distorted:
A reporter asks an astronaut how he would spend his last few hours in a shuttle with a failed engine that was on a decaying orbit – Would he listen to his favorite songs, contact his family, pray, etc.? The astronaut replies, “I’m pretty sure I would use the last few hours trying to fix the engine.”
The point is that the human mind can ALWAYS choose to think, even if his last hours are spent thinking in vain. But, since the consensus seems to be that we should accept this as true but argue the arbitrary anyway…
But dont you get it, that there are three alternatives:
You live, he dies
He lives, you die
You both die
Howcome you dont choose the first one? How can you claim that his life is of equal value to you than your own? What good does it do to you, that you die and he lives?
Actually, the alternatives are different and more numerous:
A further wrinkle in the “let’s murder each other” approach is this; when you are rescued, you’ll have to live with the social consequences of being a murderer. If you are a Klingon, that means you get to celebrate over some Gagh, blood wine and violent sex. If you are human…
Gentlemen, you have obviously never tried to kill a man. 
… Well neither have I, but from what they tell me, it isn’t a matter of just deciding to kill him and poof, he’s gone. Chances are he might resist. He could kill you and survive himself, you could both die, you could live but be more or less injured, or indeed you might be able to kill him and remain intact yourself from your heel right up to the topmost hair on your head. It depends on the circumstances.
Since it’s a “life boat” situation, Objectivism isn’t going to give you an answer. (Check out what Rand said about a similar situation.)
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Those who are appalled at any of the arbitrary options presented or think that there is any point to debating the myriad of options still do not have this point. You are debating the arbitrary and no amount of deductive logic wil provide you any reason to be emotionally satisfied with one answer or another. There is no standard by which to judge one option over another, because the standard has been removed. That is the trap of these senarios.
Stop it.
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”
You live a life knowing that you are a murderer, and die with a corresponding level of dignity.
Is dignity an intrinsic value?
With my life being my standard of value, is immediate death more valuable than living knowing that I am a “murderer” ?
If I kill someone in self-defense, does that make me a murderer anyway? If I killed a shark trying to eat me, would that make me a murderer? Does having just bought a tuna sandwich make me a murderer? Is a lion eating a zebra a murderer? In the struggle for survival between organisms that are not in a position to survive by reason–which this scenario is all about–kill or be killed is the law of nature.
Please focus on the first part of my post. The proper approach to this situation is to reject that you can be denied your mind. Brainlock can only occur at the hands of another, through force or fraud, and to say otherwise is accept the premise of a malevolent universe.
Is dignity an intrinsic value?
Dignity is a value that is instrumental in achieving happiness. The only intrinsic value is life.
With my life being my standard of value, is immediate death more valuable than living knowing that I am a “murderer” ?
Yes; if you wish to live as a man.
If I kill someone in self-defense, does that make me a murderer anyway?
Of course not! But, breathing communal air that nobody had the foresight to stake a claim on ahead of time of isn’t the innitiation of force. Nor does your need of that air constitute a claim on the other man’s life.
If I killed a shark trying to eat me, would that make me a murderer? Does having just bought a tuna sandwich make me a murderer? Is a lion eating a zebra a murderer?
Let’s not be silly. One cannot murder an animal. In the case of undersea combat, as in all combat, only the person who initiates the violence is guilty of abandoning human behavior.
In the struggle for survival between organisms that are not in a position to survive by reason–which this scenario is all about–kill or be killed is the law of nature.
My case depends on the accuracy of the thread’s title, “rigged, extreme, impossible hypothetical.” You always have your mind (barring human intervention). Lifeboat scenarios are designed to retreat in the face of solutions like Kirk Cameron in the face of scientific evidence. The purpose of the retreat is to attempt to prove that altruism is necessary for living life normally.
This point is important, so I will address it again; lifeboat scenarios are an attempt to prove altruism is the basis of morality. Once this is done, the person presenting the scenario will expect you to hold that altruism is the basis for normal ethical behavior.
If you have access to a copy of the Virtue Of Selfishness, please go back and re-read the ethics of emergencies (as I have). Rand’s point is that you cannot draw conclusions from emergency situations and apply them to normal life; not that you cannot apply ethics to emergency situations. In this case, to concede that you would attack is to accept the validity of the hypothetical, the prudent predator principle and altruism. On the other hand, to deny there are any situations where you must abandon your mind to nature serves to expose the hypothetical as arbitrary. I’ll grant that it is cheating, but Kendall pointed out that the game is rigged; you have to cheat to win.
How the hell arent you gonna choose “kill the other guy and live”?
Easy. Who’s the other guy?
Maybe he’s your lifelong navy buddy who has perhaps saved your life on one occasion. Maybe he’s your brother. Maybe he’s your wife’s borther. Maybe he’s your son. Maybe he’s someone you hold in high esteem for one good reason or another. Maybe he’s the guy who will work out a universal cancer cure (no more contrived than the scenario).
So it depends a lot on who the other guy is, doesn’t it?
Please focus on the first part of my post. The proper approach to this situation is to reject that you can be denied your mind.
Man’s mind is powerful, but not omnipotent. Think of the people who jumped out the windows on 9/11, for example. They had a choice between staying inside and suffocating, or jumping out and being crushed to pieces. This was the result of a terrorist attack, of course, but the same thing could have happened as a genuine accident. It’s not a normal occurrence in life, nor a remotely likely one, but it can be hypothesized.
What this scenario adds is a twist of you being able to save yourself by killing someone else. I don’t know how realistic that is; as I said, the whole thing is very unlikely even without that twist, so there is little point in pondering it very much–except to do what I have done, and use it to point out how the life of mindless brutes is different from that of the rational animal.
Of course not! But, breathing communal air that nobody had the foresight to stake a claim on ahead of time of isn’t the innitiation of force.
Being made of meat is not an initiation of force on the zebra’s part, either–but the lion still eats it, in defense of its life. This is why the lion’s action cannot be considered murder. The initiation of force is only wrong within the context of the interaction of beings who are capable of surviving by reason.
This point is important, so I will address it again; lifeboat scenarios are an attempt to prove altruism is the basis of morality. Once this is done, the person presenting the scenario will expect you to hold that altruism is the basis for normal ethical behavior.
If you have access to a copy of the Virtue Of Selfishness, please go back and re-read the ethics of emergencies (as I have). Rand’s point is that you cannot draw conclusions from emergency situations and apply them to normal life; not that you cannot apply ethics to emergency situations. In this case, to concede that you would attack is to accept the validity of the hypothetical, the prudent predator principle and altruism. On the other hand, to deny there are any situations where you must abandon your mind to nature serves to expose the hypothetical as arbitrary. I’ll grant that it is cheating, but Kendall pointed out that the game is rigged; you have to cheat to win.
I am not sure which of my positions you would like me to change and in what way.
Easy. Who’s the other guy?
Maybe he’s your lifelong navy buddy who has perhaps saved your life on one occasion. Maybe he’s your brother. Maybe he’s your wife’s borther. Maybe he’s your son. Maybe he’s someone you hold in high esteem for one good reason or another. Maybe he’s the guy who will work out a universal cancer cure (no more contrived than the scenario).
So it depends a lot on who the other guy is, doesn’t it?
Well, i think we have already established that it is a complete stranger we are talking about. And i dont get how it matters whether the other guy may work out a universal cancer cure?
And yes, this has ZERO to do with objectivism, as KendallJ said. Still, i find it baffling why you would rather see the other person live, than yourself.
What this scenario adds is a twist of you being able to save yourself by killing someone else.
It does not. The twist it attempts to add is that there is an environmental condition that changes man’s fundamental nature and the identity of murder. This fails because no external condition (that isn’t force or fraud) can deny you the use of your mind or change the facts of reality.
If you do choose to murder someone, you will forever be a murderer, and the rest of your life will have been the direct result of homicide. If you choose to benifit from human predation, you do so not as a man. This type of murder should perhaps be viewed a little differently than other kinds, but it remains murder.
I don’t know how realistic that is; as I said, the whole thing is very unlikely even without that twist, so there is little point in pondering it very much–except to do what I have done, and use it to point out how the life of mindless brutes is different from that of the rational animal.
Actually, what your position erroneously confirms is a similarity between humans and animals.
Being made of meat is not an initiation of force on the zebra’s part, either–but the lion still eats it, in defense of its life. This is why the lion’s action cannot be considered murder. The initiation of force is only wrong within the context of the interaction of beings who are capable of surviving by reason.
Of course it isn’t; The lion initiates force, not in defense of its life but in pursuit of its life. There is no parallel here for proper (even for a short amount of time) human-human interaction. The men on that sub are still capable of remaining men by choosing not to engage in barbarism.
I am not sure which of my positions you would like me to change and in what way.
The position I aim to change is this: that you cannot apply ethics to emergencies (you can) - and by extention, the idea that there is a scenario that makes murder ok (there isn’t).
The Ethics of Emergencies serves to show what action is appropriate in an emergency, and that emergencies should not be used to derive principles about how to live. The essay most certainly does not justify murder in special cases. Check out the selection for emergencies here.