From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:20:23 GMT

ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>By your own standards, though, who are you to impose this condition -
>that the contemplation of his own glory is *that* valuable - on Roark?
>Suppose he just doesn't *feel* like tossing the life preserver to the
>drowning man. He just isn't in the mood. It isn't a question of awesome
>values clashing in the heavens: he just doesn't particularly care
>whether the guy lives or dies. Is this still "in accordance with
>Objectivist principles"?

The general idea is "karma", that is, as you treat others, so they shall
treat you.  If you generally are nice to others, they will be nice to you.

Note:  You are looking for Objectivist morals.  Objectivism acknowledges
no morals in the usual sense.  A'la Crowley, "Do what thou wilt shalt be
the whole of the law" with Rand's addition: "so long as it does not violate
the personal or property rights of others".

However the question "is manslaughter legal in Objectivism" really must be
considered now since there is no law (seemingly) against leaving others to
die or (presumably) indirectly causing their deaths through negligence.

>Ah, the old "but the guy you help might be rich" maneuver. I'm familiar
>with this kind of line often offered by "objectivists" to explain why
>they generally act like decent human beings instead of the bastards
>their theories would seem to make them. So let's rule out this

Generally what you are describing is on the verge of plutocracy: people
have rights, but the rich have MORE rights because they are rich.

I would say that this line of personal criticism of Objectivists has gone
far enough.  I'd rather discuss the theories than discuss insults hurled
back and forth.

Generally, I'd say that assuming the guy you help might offer you a substantial
reward is self-delusionary: you in no way can assume this.  There is also the
notion of "if he offers a reward once he'll offer it again" which leads people
to essentially set up other people and "rescue" them and hope for a reward.
In essence, "protection" agencies much like gang protectionism now.

>possibility. There's no-one else around watching, and Roark knows that
>the drowning man is poor. The drowning man is screaming for help, Roark
>sees the life preserver, muses on how easy it would be to toss it to the
>man and save his life, and then goes back to contemplating his own glory.
>And to close another loophole, let's assume that Roark is heavily
>armed and otherwise protected from harm, so there isn't any real
>possibility that his saving the guy's life could somehow backfire
>on him (as in the case of the roadside Good Samaritan who gets shot).

There's also the point that this person would almost be guaranteed death
if Roark had yacht security and you can't simply get away on sea from a
yacht as quickly as you could get rid of a dead body and take the guy's car
on land.

Basically the point made is "Objectivists tend to value the almighty dollar.
A personal has certain rights.  A rich person has more rights because he
is rich.  Not rights per se, but Objectivists would be willing to do more for
him in expectation of a reward even if none was forthcoming".  That is, you
do not value PEOPLE, you value RICH PEOPLE'S REWARDS hence you value money
more than people.

If such people ran the "Objectivist government", I could practically guarantee
you a plutocracy would be set up REAL darn quick.  They would have no incentive
to respect people rather than money (after all, people are cheap, particularly
if you're getting in on the money) and thus would accept bribes and in general
be corrupt to the extent that people would be willing to pay for them to be so.

Simply put:
Premises:
a) Objectivists value life in accordance with its importance in their lives,
   not in and of itself.
b) Government employees of Objectivist nature control government policy.
c) Government enforces law, uses force, and hence controls the lives of many
   through its sheer size and function.
d) Most government employees do not know their constituants.
e) People are up for sale when not restrained by morality.
-----
Conclusions:
1) Objectivist government employees do not value their constituants. (a,b,d)
2) Objectivist government employees can easily accept bribes. (1,e)
3) A corrupt government ensues, controlling the populace. (2,c)
4) The government is most likely a plutocracy.  (e)

Thus, the Constitution would have to be morally entrenched, and people of
"superior character" who value life and liberty above personal gain would
have to be employed.  The alternative would be civil war or a corrupt
plutocracy or despotism most likely.  There is much a problem of employing
totally uncorrupt people in an Objective government as there is in any
other government where leaders are chosen by "the people".  Unfortunately there
is also the additional problem that increasing the social importance of money
tends to increase the likelihood that people can be "bought".

I do not necessarily claim that objectivists do not have the necessary morals
to operate a government of this nature, but that they would have to have more
morality than your standard "joe" does.  If a person does not value personal
liberty then you can stuff that person in jail or banish him/her from society.
If government does not have this moral standard then you have a REAL problem.

>Those who read this group out of curiousity as to what "objectivism" is
>might pay particular attention to this issue. It is most revealing.

I disagree.  I think that while this is an interesting discussion it by no
means even covers much of Objectivism's philosophy.  At most you can say that
this may indicate a way in which Objectivism can induce a society not in
accordance with its set goals.

I have no claim about the morals of Objectivists.  I really do not care
about the morals of Objectivists.  I am merely pointing out that unless
some higher notion of morality is entrenched in the government, you get chaos.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism