From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:41:27 GMT

In article <106687@bu.edu> you write:
>In article <1993Jan10.215714.16390@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
>>(Hmm... this brings up an interesting legal issue:  would there be a concept of
>>"criminal neglect" in an Objectivist society?  Would letting someone drown, if
>>you could easily save him, be a tort?)
>
>Forget about "torts": would there be anything *wrong* with it, in
>A Randian utopia of self-centered fountainheads?
>
>Scenario: While contemplating his own glory aboard his private yacht,
>Howard Roark sees someone drowning, going help-help-help and all that
>(perhaps the drowner doesn't realize what kind of world he lives in).
>All Roark has to do to save the person is walk across the deck, grab
>a life preserver, and toss it in. But he doesn't bother - why should he?
>He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
>claim on his actions. So the guy in the water drowns.
>
>Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
>gather, your answer must be "no".


On the other hand, take a look at how Francisco d'Anconia reacts instantly
to the steel furnace explosion at Hank Rearden's mills (in _Atlas .._): he
does not pause to calculate his optimal self-interest or rate of return, he
does not stop to consider if he 'values' the mills, or Rearden's friendship, 
etc. enough to warrant risking his life in this situation.  And I certainly
don't think that Francisco reacts in this way just because he is a paid 
employee of the company at that time!  After all, he knows that everything
before his eyes will come to pass, will revert to dirt and rubble, while
all of the heroes are camping out in Zarathu.., er, I mean, Galt's mountain
hideaway, singing tributes to human ability.

So why does Francisco take this risk?

Quite simply, he just _does_ it.  Amidst the chaos and confusion of all of
the sub-par mill workers, he and Rearden alone can put out the fire and save
the steel mill.  He acts quickly and effectively when faced with this emer-
gency; he knows what to do, and he _does_ it, that's all.  I think that this
episode is very useful for straining both the notions of idle, excessive
_vanity_ and (Benthamite) economic hyper-calculation of "interests," the 
latter of which is quite the vogue these days in some circles.  A heroic 
objectivist would save the drowning person, if the situation wasn't hopeless,
say, if the person was being swallowed by Charybdis or, worse, swimming
in the Chicago river.

On the one hand, he must still evaluate the situation, but not, I don't 
think, in a strictly quantitative sense (= inaction), but he must also act,
beyond the limits of an exaggerated wooden (or self-indulgent) personality.

Of course, my take on this issue, and on the issue of individualism versus
a more pronounced 'egoism' may differ from others' views, as I have suggest-
ed above.

cg
-- 
:::::======  Christian Gustafson    
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
===========  
===========  The last living Spencerian - a veritable museum piece!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism