From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:56:21 GMT

In article <106709@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) speaks:
> 
>(first, he quotes me...)
>->>Scenario: While contemplating his own glory aboard his private yacht,
>->>Howard Roark sees someone drowning, going help-help-help and all that
>->>... 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?
> 
>->because most people value saving a life over staying put in their
>->deckchair. now if HR couldn't swim and his only way of saving
>->the guy was to jump in, i'd say he was well within reason in not
>->doing so. but if he wanted to, he would. that is all.
> 
>This does not in any way answer my question. I didn't ask what
>most people would do. I asked what Roark *should* do, and whether
>or not a certain course of action would be considered objectionable
>by "objectivists".

no, you asked "why should he bother"? not "what should he do". that is
how i answered. as to "what he should do" -- he should do whatever
he feels is right, based on his prioritization of actions and consequences.

>And please don't muddy the waters (no pun
>intended) by throwing in suggestions that he can't swim or
>whatever. Stick to my example. It's straightforward enough.

i thought my answer was straight-forward. the "can't swim" etc.
was not intended to muddy anything, but to anticipate a potential
qualifier which is frequently introduced into these discussions.
sorry if it was irrelevant.
 
>->>He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
>->>claim on his actions.
>->
>->this is ludicrous. objectivists simply claim that he doesn't have
>->an *obligation* to save the guy. that doesn't mean he wouldn't,
>->if all he had to do was throw him a life preserver.
> 
>Again, I'm not asking you what Roark would be likely to do,
>I'm asking what he *should* do. Perhaps you don't like that word.

exactly. i don't like it. because i have no basis to make this
decision for him.
he *should* do what he feels is right based on his principles.

>OK. Let me just ask then, what would be an "objectivistically"
>appropriate attitude toward his failure to throw the preserver?

i don't know the official answer. mine would be "it was his decision.
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".

>Since you do say that he has no obligation to save the guy,
>do you have any comments on his letting him drown? Does it
>sit well with your concept of the "objectivist" man?

no, because this is a ludicrous strawman. 
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.
 
>->>Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
>->>gather, your answer must be "no".
> 
>->define "reprehensible". i would think his actions were reprehensible, based on
>->his prioritization of what is important. others might disagree.
>->of course maybe i don't know *why* he didn't act.
> 
>Define "reprehensible"... OK... "wrong", "bad", "ugly", "objectionable",
>"inappropriate", "immoral", take your pick. But you don't really
>seem to have a problem with the term, since you go right ahead and
>proceed to use it on your own, so why the demand for a definition?

maybe because i wanted to hear *your* definition of it.
as it turns out, most of the words you list are not equivalent in many
discussions...but that's not too important here.

why are you being so snappy?
if you want to be aggressive about this, fine. i thought we were
exploring ideas here, not trying to get into a fight.
 
>You admit that you would find his actions reprehensible. Why?
>Just a matter of personal taste, here? Or is there something
>a little more objective - in the standard sense - to it?

it conflicts with my objective prioritization of actions and results.

>P.S. - You want to know why Roark didn't act, I'll tell you;
>this is, after all, my own fictional example. He was, as I
>said, too busy contemplating his own glory. He simply didn't
>want to be bothered taking the trouble to cross the deck,
>grab the preserver, and toss it over. Great guy, huh?

no. i would have no respect for him. but he has a right to do as
he wishes if he doesn't care about what i think of him. if he does
care, he'll factor that into his decisions.

i have no right to make him throw the preserver. which is why
you set up this silly case, so why not just make your point already?
no self-respecting objectivist would behave in the manner you
describe. there is simply no reason to do so.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism