Justification

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It is, again, just like a lifeboat situation: you do not have a political or moral right to your life if you and a group of people are trapped in a lifeboat and everyone is going to starve unless someone is killed and eaten. All moral claims against someone harming you are, in my view, out the window.

That is how I too view these "lifeboat" situations. And, it would seem as if Ayn Rand would agree, when in the Q&A period of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech she directly addressed the lifeboat situation. When it comes down to the choice of you losing your life or taking the life of an innocent other, she indicated that "morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right."

But, I remain a bit perplexed by another statement Miss Rand made in this regard. Here is an excerpt from a radio show with Ayn Rand dating back to the early 1960s, called "Ayn Rand on Campus." It was broadcast by WKCR at Columbia University, and this particular show was titled "Morality, and Why Man Requires It."

Gerald Goodman: "Miss Rand, then you would say that a person who was starving, and the only way he could acquire food was to take the food of a second party, then he would have no right, even though it meant his own life, to take the food."

Ayn Rand: "Not in normal circumstances, but that question sometimes is asked about emergency situations. For instance, supposing you are washed ashore after a shipwreck, and there is a locked house which is not yours, but you're starving and you might die the next moment, and there is food in this house, what is your moral behavior? I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article 'The Ethics Of Emergencies' in The Virtue Of Selfishness for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as 'of right.' You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts."

Note the concluding remark: "would be moral on both parts." I suppose if you took the two "parts" to be after the emergency was over, then "recognizing the property right of the owner" and the "restitute whatever you have taken" could be the two parts. If so, then, of course, morality does pertain as the emergency is over. But the context makes it seem to me that the two "parts" which she refers to as moral are the "right to break in and eat the food that you need," and then the eventual restitution. If this interpretation is correct, then this would indicate that morality does pertain in part to the actions during the emergency, not just after it is over.

Granted, these remarks were made extemporaneously, but, nevertheless, I'm curious as to how you (and others) read this.

[B. Royce 0]

That is how I too view these "lifeboat" situations. And, it would seem as if Ayn Rand would agree, when in the Q&A period of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech she directly addressed the lifeboat situation. When it comes down to the choice of you losing your life or taking the life of an innocent other, she indicated that "morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right."

But, I remain a bit perplexed by another statement Miss Rand made in this regard. Here is an excerpt from a radio show with Ayn Rand dating back to the early 1960s, called "Ayn Rand on Campus." It was broadcast by WKCR at Columbia University, and this particular show was titled "Morality, and Why Man Requires It."

Note the concluding remark: "would be moral on both parts." I suppose if you took the two "parts" to be after the emergency was over, then "recognizing the property right of the owner" and the "restitute whatever you have taken" could be the two parts. If so, then, of course, morality does pertain as the emergency is over. But the context makes it seem to me that the two "parts" which she refers to as moral are the "right to break in and eat the food that you need," and then the eventual restitution. If this interpretation is correct, then this would indicate that morality does pertain in part to the actions during the emergency, not just after it is over.

Granted, these remarks were made extemporaneously, but, nevertheless, I'm curious as to how you (and others) read this.

On first reading Miss Rand's remarks I took the two parts to mean the breaking in and the restitution. I would not have thought of the two parts you did.

[Guest danielshrugged]

If this interpretation is correct, then this would indicate that morality does pertain in part to the actions during the emergency, not just after it is over.

No, it would indicate that Ayn Rand believed that morality pertains to the actions during an emergency.

Granted, these remarks were made extemporaneously, but, nevertheless, I'm curious as to how you (and others) read this.

I am inclined to read it in the second way that you mention. But in any case, I don't need to engage in exegesis to establish that morality is necessary even under emergency conditions. Suppose, for example, that someone in an emergency liked living that way and did everything he could to prolong the emergency. Would that not be immoral? There may be many personal options about how to act in an emergency, but one does need morality. One needs to know, for example, that life cannot thrive under that situation and that the first priority has to be to end the emergency.

As for Ayn Rand's statement on another occassion that morality does not pertain to emergency situations, I think she may have meant that morality does not help decide between the two specific options on the table. But even if this were Ayn Rand's intent, I disagee with her. I think that one needs the aid of morality even in choosing between personal options (but this is a huge topic in itself), including under an emergency.

[B. Royce 0]

Well, I couldn't help but one more hypothetical situation.

Two men are starving on a small desert island. One man tries to kill the other to eat him, but is foiled. He says, "Why did you stop me? Only one of us can survive for another two weeks, and that's if one eats the other."

"So", says the other, "you're saying I am morally wrong to stop you from killing me?"

"No, morality has nothing to do with it."

"If morality has nothing to do with it, then don't ask me why I stopped you."

"But then it's just a matter of might makes right, isn't it?"

"No, there is no right in our situation, just might."

"Well, aren't YOU going to try to kill ME?"

"No."

"But why? Are we both going to just lay about until we die?"

"You think that would be morally wrong? For whom?"

"For you; you're stronger; you should kill me and eat me."

"Then are you saying that you would be morally wrong to try to stop me, that it is morally right for you to surrender to superior might?"

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] morality is necessary even under emergency conditions. Suppose, for example, that someone in an emergency liked living that way and did everything he could to prolong the emergency. Would that not be immoral? There may be many personal options about how to act in an emergency, but one does need morality. One needs to know, for example, that life cannot thrive under that situation and that the first priority has to be to end the emergency.

1. Morality does apply in emergency situations.

2. Morality does not apply in emergency situations.

There is no contradiction in the two preceding statements -- if different aspects of morality (that is, a code of behavior) are being spoken of here.

1. In a lifeboat situation, I can rightly abandon those aspects of my morality that apply to normal social situations -- e.g., the rights of others. This might be called, only as shorthand, "social morality," that is, my moral code as it applies to my dealings with others, in normal circumstances.

2. In all situations, the remainder of my morality -- which might, for shorthand in this discussion, be called "individual morality" -- applies everywhere and at all times. An obvious example is the virtue of rationality. Under no circumstances -- especially emergency ones! -- should I abandon that element of my morality. Another example is the virtue of honesty. I must at all times face the facts of reality -- but doing so, I can in some situations lie to other individuals.

Keeping this individual/social distinction in mind is part of keeping context when thinking about the morality of various actions in various circumstances. Keeping context is the way to avoid unintentional equivocations.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

On first reading Miss Rand's remarks I took the two parts to mean the breaking in and the restitution. I would not have thought of the two parts you did.

Well, yes, for me it was quite a stretch to connect those two other parts, but I wanted to give as much possible leeway as I could towards the two differing statements by Miss Rand. Again, all of these were extemporaneous remarks on her part, and were they meant for print she would have had an opportunity to edit and clarify.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If this interpretation is correct, then this would indicate that morality does pertain in part to the actions during the emergency, not just after it is over.

No, it would indicate that Ayn Rand believed that morality pertains to the actions during an emergency.

Well, that's nice, except that Miss Rand actually said "morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right."

Granted, these remarks were made extemporaneously, but, nevertheless, I'm curious as to how you (and others) read this.

I am inclined to read it in the second way that you mention. But in any case, I don't need to engage in exegesis to establish that morality is necessary even under emergency conditions. Suppose, for example, that someone in an emergency liked living that way and did everything he could to prolong the emergency. Would that not be immoral?

Obviously, which should indicate to you that perhaps you are broadening the intended context. That it is sensible to break into the house and take the food, is not license to rape the wife of the man who owns the house. Clearly the context of "morality does not pertain" is for those actions that are necessary to solve the emergency, actions which in ordinary circumstances could be immoral.

As for Ayn Rand's statement on another occassion that morality does not pertain to emergency situations, I think she may have meant that morality does not help decide between the two specific options on the table.

I'm not sure just what you mean by "two specific options on the table," but the "morality does not pertain" remark was made in reference to the "lifeboat" choice of killing an innocent stranger or forfeiting your own life. If that is what you meant, then, yes, I agree, that is exactly the context of Miss Rand's remark, and one with which I completely agree.

But even if this were Ayn Rand's intent, I disagee with her. I think that one needs the aid of morality even in choosing between personal options (but this is a huge topic in itself), including under an emergency.

We seem to have interpreted Miss Rand's remarks in rather different ways, but, regardless, you are free to disagree with her if you like.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Well, I couldn't help but one more hypothetical situation.

[...]

"Then are you saying that you would be morally wrong to try to stop me, that it is morally right for you to surrender to superior might?"

I'm not sure in what way this additional hypothetical adds to the discussion, but I think the point remains that in a "lifeboat" situation, where the choice is your life or the life of an innocent other, morality does not pertain.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

1. In a lifeboat situation, I can rightly abandon those aspects of my morality that apply to normal social situations -- e.g., the rights of others. This might be called, only as shorthand, "social morality," that is, my moral code as it applies to my dealings with others, in normal circumstances.

2. In all situations, the remainder of my morality -- which might, for shorthand in this discussion, be called "individual morality" -- applies everywhere and at all times. An obvious example is the virtue of rationality. Under no circumstances -- especially emergency ones! -- should I abandon that element of my morality. Another example is the virtue of honesty. I must at all times face the facts of reality -- but doing so, I can in some situations lie to other individuals.

Yes. Very nicely put.

I would just add to "1." that in the "lifeboat" situation you do not abandon morality for all social situations, but only that which is absolutely necessary to resolve the "lifeboat" problem. An emergency is not a license to act in anyway towards anyone. If you and a man and woman are in a boat and one must be thrown overboard if the other two are to survive, throwing the man overboard is not a license to rape the woman. Not to imply that Burgess thinks otherwise, but I just wanted to make this explicit.

[B. Royce 0]

1. Morality does apply in emergency situations.

2. Morality does not apply in emergency situations.

There is no contradiction in the two preceding statements -- if different aspects of morality (that is, a code of behavior) are being spoken of here.

1. In a lifeboat situation, I can rightly abandon those aspects of my morality that apply to normal social situations -- e.g., the rights of others. This might be called, only as shorthand, "social morality," that is, my moral code as it applies to my dealings with others, in normal circumstances.

2. In all situations, the remainder of my morality -- which might, for shorthand in this discussion, be called "individual morality" -- applies everywhere and at all times. An obvious example is the virtue of rationality. Under no circumstances -- especially emergency ones! -- should I abandon that element of my morality. Another example is the virtue of honesty. I must at all times face the facts of reality -- but doing so, I can in some situations lie to other individuals.

Keeping this individual/social distinction in mind is part of keeping context when thinking about the morality of various actions in various circumstances. Keeping context is the way to avoid unintentional equivocations.

Thanks, Burgess; that clarifies a lot.

[B. Royce 0]

Yes. Very nicely put.

I would just add to "1." that in the "lifeboat" situation you do not abandon morality for all social situations, but only that which is absolutely necessary to resolve the "lifeboat" problem. An emergency is not a license to act in anyway towards anyone. If you and a man and woman are in a boat and one must be thrown overboard if the other two are to survive, throwing the man overboard is not a license to rape the woman. Not to imply that Burgess thinks otherwise, but I just wanted to make this explicit.

Yes. Nice addition.

[Megan 0]

Just to clarify, I know that there is definently a strong logical argument for the side that thinks Heinz should steal the drug. I was just using that as an example because if the opposition had been making logical arguments, I would have listened and would have had no problem with the debate. However, their arguments lacked anything to back them up. They just kept repeating "His wife is dying!" They said nothing besides that for the reasoning that he should steal the drug. I guess it is somewhat an argument if you can assume that he truly values his wife over everything else, but they used nothing else. Anyway, that was just an example so I wanted to be sure you understood that I wasn't saying ther's no argument on the other side.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

However, their arguments lacked anything to back them up.

I take it that you are referring to the people on some other forum where the issue of "Heinz" was first raised. That is indeed frustrating when people cannot articulate the principles underlying their ethical conclusions. Unfortunately, few apart from Objectivists hold ethical principles so clearly and precisely that they can articulate their view in a convincing manner.

But, I remain curious about one thing. In your original post here you stated: "I argued my point with more than enough logical points that anyone who was looking at this question rationally would have agreed." Since the position you argued for was opposite the prevailing position voiced here in this thread, have you changed you mind about the issue or do you still think that your arguments were so strong that "anyone who was looking at this question rationally would have agreed?" If you have not changed your mind, then I would certainly like to hear those strong arguments.

[Megan 0]

Since the position you argued for was opposite the prevailing position voiced here in this thread, have you changed you mind about the issue or do you still think that your arguments were so strong that "anyone who was looking at this question rationally would have agreed?" If you have not changed your mind, then I would certainly like to hear those strong arguments.

I have not changed my mind. The main reason is, my highest value, is justice. And it is not just, to steal, ever. That probably sounds very naive and childish, but it is how I feel. Though, I must admit, you all at least made me consider the other side of the argument. However, I'm still keeping my ground. As I said, justice is my highest held value, and I'm sticking with it.

[Megan 0]

I will also add, that even if one does accept the consequences afterward, I still don't feel that it's right. I also should say that, unless I were in this situation, I don't really know for sure what I would do. Right now, I will say that I wouldn't steal the drug, but if it were to happen to me in real life, I could very well take the other course of action and steal it, for the reasons that have been afore stated. But for now, I'll stick with the statement "I would not steal the drug."

[Arnold 0]

I will also add, that even if one does accept the consequences afterward, I still don't feel that it's right. I also should say that, unless I were in this situation, I don't really know for sure what I would do. Right now, I will say that I wouldn't steal the drug, but if it were to happen to me in real life, I could very well take the other course of action and steal it, for the reasons that have been afore stated. But for now, I'll stick with the statement "I would not steal the drug."

Hi Megan,

If you think about why we need a morality, you will see that it is to serve an end. That end is our life; not just our existence, but the longterm enjoyment of it. Thus morality is not a set of commandments that are an end in themselves, but rather a means to an end. So, it makes no sense to give up life, to a code meant to further that life. Since the context of our lives changes often, the requirements to live a happy life also change, meaning that a moral code should be contextual and not an absolute set of commandments.

And no, this doesn't make it subjective, as reality is the objective guide.

I hope this has given you something to consider.