From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:53:54 GMT

In article <106732@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) speaks:
> 
>   (re: Roark letting the guy drown by not bothering
>    to throw him a life preserver)
> 
>>                as to "what he should do" -- he should do whatever
>>he feels is right, based on his prioritization of actions and consequences.
> 
>This is an absolute total cop-out. Hitler, presumably, felt that
>his actions were right. This is clearly not a criterion for
>moral or any other kind of acceptability.

(sigh)
if you want to set up a very specific, very convoluted example, that is
fine, but don't generalize the conclusions from it!
i said "he should do what he feels is right" based on the
particular (ludicrous) example you described. that does not mean
this is the case in every situation. rounding up people and murdering
them is not even close to the same thing as what you described.
the obligation of "Roark" (i hate it when anti-objectivists use
the names of Rand's characters in their arguments) in the case you
describe is voluntary -- he can choose to help or not to.
comparing that to Hitler is saying that Hitler had no obligation
not to attempt genocide.

>>i can't understand why he would do this. either he had a very
>>important reason for not throwing the life preserver that
>>i don't understand, or he is an extremely selfish person with
>>whom i would not wish to associate".
> 
>But I thought selfishness was the ultimate virtue! How can
>an "objectivist" use this term with negative connotations?

easy -- you don't understand what the term means wrt objectivism.

acting in one's own interests does not mean letting people drown.
presumably people don't want others to die; they
would rather suffer the financial (and time?) loss of walking over
to get a life preserver and throwng it in than suffer the emotional
turmoil of knowing their actions directly and simply led to the death
of another. the question is a matter of prioritization, as i and another
poster explained. 

if they feel no such turmoil, they are cold and bitter and i would
stay far away from them. in that case the word "selfish" is being
used in the classic way, implying negativity. i don't think the
distinction is that difficult to understand.
 
>>objectivists don't behave this way; your example is just another
>>re-hash of the "objectivists are all selfish bastards" stereotype that
>>is as old as Rand's ideas.
> 
>Of course it's a straw man.

but it isn't a good one! because it is a situation so ludicrous and
particular that nothing can be generalized from it. objectivism does
have some weak points, but you're not going to get at them by putting
"Howard Roark" on a yacht yawning while i guy goes under...

>And I rather doubt that even Rand herself
>would have let our hypothetical drowning man perish.

did you read A.S.? remember the fire at H.R.'s plant?

>I'm not
>saying "objectivists are all selfish bastards", not at all.
>I am saying that their views have consequences which one would
>have to be a selfish bastard to act on.

so? seriously! anything taken to a ludicrous extreme is that way.
if objectivists would not be that way, and you admit that even the most
ardent anti-altruist would not do as you suggest "Roark" is doing, 
then your point is moot and this straw man needs to be torched.

--
charles