From: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc (Steve Rogers)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Reply-To: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:30:23 GMT

In article 106785@bu.edu, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.031646.2043@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy) writes:
> I quite agree that one is under no obligation to sacrifice one's
> life to save a stranger. BUT:
> 
> This is another excellent example of the "objectivist" tendency to paint
> pictures in the exaggerated black and white of false dichotomy.
> I remind you that the hypothetical case in question sits at neither of
> these two extremes; it involves the safe, minimal-effort rescue of
> a stranger . . . . .

This is a hard question because it gets at the root of the difference
between Objectivism and other altruism-based philosophies, like
Christianity.  The answer is that you would certainly go out of your
way to save a drowning person, particularly if the risk to yourself was
minimal or nonexistant.  The reason you would do this is that a selfish
person, being a human being, values human life.  It seems like a
philosophy that advocates selfishness would end up advocating complete
indifference to others, at best.  As with many large systems, the
answer you get when you think about it at great length is not what your
intuition leads you to expect at first glance.  Objectivism differs
from most philosophies in that it is about gaining and preserving
values, not sacrificing them.  When a rationally selfish person can
view others as fellow human beings and trading partners (not potential
burden under the welfare state) it is possible to see every person
(except criminals) as a value to yourself - a physical and spiritual
value, because there is no difference between the two.  The idea that
you would save a drowning person because they might be rich is absurd.
This is not Objectivism, its just a polemic device to keep from being
argued into a corner.  Objectivism is not a hedonistic or materialistic
philosophy where every action must be justified in terms of immediate
cash return.

>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) propounds:
> 
>    (in response to my scenario of Roark not bothering to
>     throw the drowning man a life preserver)
> 
>>If the contemplation of his own glory is truly more valuable to him
>>than the possible consequences of expending a little effort that means
>>saving some one's life, then, IMO, he has acted in accordance with
>>Objectivist principles.

In my "not so humble" opinion, this is not a correct interpretation of Objectivism.

A broader point:  it seems like some people who are arguing against
Objectivism here seem to have the tone of "I've known all along that
this philosophy was [wrong/absurd/etc] and the inability of you all to
defend it just shows how right I am".  I think it would be a good idea
to keep an open mind.  Objectivism is a philosophy - like any other, it
can take years to get to know it well, and all its implications.  You
don't need to understand a philosophy in terms of how it relates to
every subtle detail of life to know it is basically correct or
incorrect.  Objectivism should not stand or fall in anyone's mind based
on the ability of the posters to mount a successful defense against
every argument that is raised here.

---
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism