Life and Values

[Stephen Speicher 0]

You simply cannot assign a number, like "26" to a stranger and say that a stranger must rank 26th in everyone's hierarchy of values

What!? I thought a stranger ranked 19th in everyone's hierarchy of values! Now I'm totally confused....

In all seriousness, I do see how one person could place a stranger higher than a pet, while another would place the pet above a stranger in their value hierarchy. And I see how a sum of money might substitute for the pet as a quantifiable value. But does the value of the stranger vary between the two value hierarchies, or just the value of the pet? It seems to me that it is the pet (or money) that one person values more or less highly than the other, not the stranger.

With all due respect, I think that (at least implicitly, if not explicitly) these words continue to reflect the notion of intrinsic value. It seems as if you are saying that the value of a stranger somehow remains fixed, and then you value other things in relation to that.

[

To answer the question of "more or less highly in relation to what?" I mean in relation to the ultimate value of one's own life. Can the value of a stranger change in relation to that ultimate value, depending on certain factors?

Well, if I lived in a big city surrounded by many friends, I might value a stranger differently than if I lived on a mountain isolated from people and I missed the psychological benefit of friendship. The potential value of the stranger might be higher to me in the latter case, and lower in the former.

The idea of one person valuing a the life of stranger less because he has encountered a lot of harmful people seems flawed to me. It would be like a particular person valuing justice less highly, because he has encountered a lot of irrational laws. Doesn't the life of a stranger have an objective value, like justice does?

Among other problems, I think you are mixing hierarchies here; a moral hierarchy and a material one. Justice has its place in a proper hierarchy of moral principles, but in the material world a judge, for instance, might have such a passion for justice that its implementation is a guiding path for his life. The personal value of justice for the judge may be greater than for someone for whom justice is not a defining point of their life.

Perhaps what you are after is that in a proper spiritual hierarchy the potential value of a human stranger is greater than the life of a fly. But in the material realm, if one irreplacable fly is the key for a scientist whose life-long work on aging is at stake, then that scientist may very well value that fly more than the life of a stranger.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

So sorry to hear you went through this. I know when my cat died, the sense of loss was much stronger than I expected. No cute cuddly kitten could replace my deaf, skin-and-bones, 21 year-old cat--all I wanted was to have her back. Pets are definitely in their own category of values.

Thank you, and all so true, and sorry about your cat, they are irreplacable. I had rationalistically (goddamn that affliction) thought that I could dampen it by projecting it in advance. What an asinine idea!

She was also one of the main units I used for value when concretizing the Objectivist ethics. Nothing like going over those grand, important thoughts and see them yawn at you like you are the most boring thing on Earth!

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I'd be curious if anyone has any input on the value status of "stranger". It has no import for me. Surely, any stranger is a potential value, but, as a stranger, is not such a person a non-value in actual fact? If a value is "that which one acts to gain and or keep", is not a stranger outside of this context until or unless one chooses to gain and keep a certain individual as a value?

[Rose Lake 0]

I'd be curious if anyone has any input on the value status of "stranger". It has no import for me. Surely, any stranger is a potential value, but, as a stranger, is not such a person a non-value in actual fact? If a value is "that which one acts to gain and or keep", is not a stranger outside of this context until or unless one chooses to gain and keep a certain individual as a value?

There is a stranger, who has had (since I became familiar with her work) extraordinary personal value to me -- Ayn Rand. She has given me far more than I could ever have expected to gain in my life without her. I never knew her personally, and she was a stranger to me (in every way) for 85% of my life.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------

Perhaps what you are after is that in a proper spiritual hierarchy the potential value of a human stranger is greater than the life of a fly. But in the material realm, if one irreplacable fly is the key for a scientist whose life-long work on aging is at stake, then that scientist may very well value that fly more than the life of a stranger.

Just ask Vincent Price!!

[jenbryn 0]

I'd be curious if anyone has any input on the value status of "stranger". It has no import for me. Surely, any stranger is a potential value, but, as a stranger, is not such a person a non-value in actual fact? If a value is "that which one acts to gain and or keep", is not a stranger outside of this context until or unless one chooses to gain and keep a certain individual as a value?

This may be the key to my difficulties--the meaning of "the life of a stranger".

I think there is an actual, not just potential, value in a stranger--the fact that both of us are alive and human. If the beloved pet is removed from the emergency situation, I think any rational person who values his own life would rush to try to rescue a stranger if they found him floating face down in a pool of water. (And there were no other factors that could harm the rescuer.) This basic value of human life is what I mean by "the life of a stranger". Being human and being alive are things we have in common, and I value a stranger for that reason.

Well, if I lived in a big city surrounded by many friends, I might value a stranger differently than if I lived on a mountain isolated from people and I missed the psychological benefit of friendship. The potential value of the stranger might be higher to me in the latter case, and lower in the former.

But would one of these people be more inclined to pull the face-down stranger out of the water than the other? If the big city dweller with many friends hesitated for a moment, saying, "Hmm, is this person really of much potential value to me?" I would find that appalling. I would find it just as appalling if the person I gave as an example, the one who has encountered many harmful people in his life, hesitated for the same reason.

(If the big city dweller's beloved dog was also drowning nearby, or he was in a wheelchair, then his hesitation would be understandable.)

Among other problems, I think you are mixing hierarchies here; a moral hierarchy and a material one. Justice has its place in a proper hierarchy of moral principles, but in the material world a judge, for instance, might have such a passion for justice that its implementation is a guiding path for his life. The personal value of justice for the judge may be greater than for someone for whom justice is not a defining point of their life.

Perhaps what you are after is that in a proper spiritual hierarchy the potential value of a human stranger is greater than the life of a fly. But in the material realm, if one irreplacable fly is the key for a scientist whose life-long work on aging is at stake, then that scientist may very well value that fly more than the life of a stranger.

I don't understand what you mean by mixing hierarchies. Isn't the basic value of human life part of a proper hierarchy of moral principles?

If the scientist, instead of studying flies, was doing life-long research on the biology of drowning and this man could provide the key to his research--would it be right of him to stand there and watch it happen?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Maybe it would clarify matters to examine what it is about the questions being discussed that leads to so much apparent disagreement among rational, valuing people. I say "apparent" because I believe we all agree in principle -- never sacrifice a higher value to a lower value -- but we are dealing with questions of application where there are rational options too.

Observe that none of these "Which would you save?" questions involve a choice between a value and a non-value. They all involve the "Which is more valuable?" ranking of two competing values. The questions all depend on where the two values stand relative to one another in a hierarchy of values.

A hierarchy of values is an attribute of an individual and individuals can, do, and should have differing hierarchies. This is because two people can both be 100% rational yet have unique existential contexts , different contexts of knowledge, and seek different optional personal values.

For example, observe how the value of "a stranger" varies with context and optional values. In general, we grant some value to a stranger because he is a human being like ourselves but there are other factors involved too. The more he resembles us -- in age, sex, location, occupation, etc, -- the more we tend to value him. If we hear that a stranger died next door, we feel sadder that when we hear a stranger died in Pakistan. We tend to value our "home team" more than the "visitors."

The value to which we are comparing the stranger is not intrinsic either. It is likewise affected by context and rationally optional choices. If it is a matter of saving the stranger vs saving a manuscript, which is the higher value depends on whether the manuscript is an unknown pile of papers or whether it is the irreplaceable product of twenty years of your best professional work. If the choice is between saving the stranger or the dog, it depends on the value of the particular dog to a particular person. For a lonely older person who has outlived all his friends and loved ones, meeting the needs of a beloved pet might be the only thing that gives him a reason to live.

That's why I think that those in this discussion who have examined and written about how much personal value they assign to the stranger and the opposing value and WHY, are definitely on the right track. This is what accounts for the different answers and why, although we disagree, we could all be right.

[jenbryn 0]

Maybe it would clarify matters to examine what it is about the questions being discussed that leads to so much apparent disagreement among rational, valuing people. I say "apparent" because I believe we all agree in principle -- never sacrifice a higher value to a lower value -- but we are dealing with questions of application where there are rational options too.

Observe that none of these "Which would you save?" questions involve a choice between a value and a non-value. They all involve the "Which is more valuable?" ranking of two competing values. The questions all depend on where the two values stand relative to one another in a hierarchy of values.

A hierarchy of values is an attribute of an individual and individuals can, do, and should have differing hierarchies. This is because two people can both be 100% rational yet have unique existential contexts , different contexts of knowledge, and seek different optional personal values.

For example, observe how the value of "a stranger" varies with context and optional values. In general, we grant some value to a stranger because he is a human being like ourselves but there are other factors involved too. The more he resembles us -- in age, sex, location, occupation, etc, -- the more we tend to value him. If we hear that a stranger died next door, we feel sadder that when we hear a stranger died in Pakistan. We tend to value our "home team" more than the "visitors."

The value to which we are comparing the stranger is not intrinsic either. It is likewise affected by context and rationally optional choices. If it is a matter of saving the stranger vs saving a manuscript, which is the higher value depends on whether the manuscript is an unknown pile of papers or whether it is the irreplaceable product of twenty years of your best professional work. If the choice is between saving the stranger or the dog, it depends on the value of the particular dog to a particular person. For a lonely older person who has outlived all his friends and loved ones, meeting the needs of a beloved pet might be the only thing that gives him a reason to live.

That's why I think that those in this discussion who have examined and written about how much personal value they assign to the stranger and the opposing value and WHY, are definitely on the right track. This is what accounts for the different answers and why, although we disagree, we could all be right.

Betsy, I have read so many wonderfully illuminating posts by you, and I certainly would love to hear more you might have to say in this thread. But I do not agree at all that this whole question is just a matter of different personal values.

It may be silly to put so much thought into these emergency situations--they are "marginal and incidental" in life, as Ayn Rand says. But I do think there is a principle here, involving the nature of an emergency situation, that could be made clear.

.... And, for now, I might even broaden the question further by asking is it ever rational to have a non-human value so great that it is valued higher than the life of a stranger?

I have been thinking of scenarios too: what would I do if my art studio and all my artwork (many years of work) was burning, and my dumb neighbor was caught in the fire? Could I really choose to save my artwork over my neighbor?

I don't know if other people here have also considered these kinds of choices with some suspicion, but if so--here are some clues that I can see to a resolution of the issue:

An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible....In an emergency situation, men's primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions...By "normal" conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence.

If the primary goal in an emergency is restoring conditions appropriate to human existence, isn't the preservation of life the highest priority?

Basic human life is not an intrinsic value. The principle "never sacrifice a higher value to a lower value" is also not intrinsic--it rests on certain facts. There would be no need for this principle at all, and no values or value hierarchy of any kind, without life.

These things that are leading me to think it could not be right to save something non-living over a living person in an emergency.

Thoughts? If everyone is just tired of this issue and would rather get back to normal, non-emergency life, that is fine with me. I have found it to be an interesting discussion though.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But I do not agree at all that this whole question is just a matter of different personal values.

Nor do I, but I think it accounts for most of the disagreements here in this particular thread.

Observe that we all agree that the stranger and the pet are values, that people have differing hierarchies of values due to optional rational choices, and that the value of the stranger and the pet are each affected by a given person's particular personal context. When we agree on the essential principles involved, make a decision about the relative value of two values, and it is a close call and a hard choice, those optional and contextual issues are probably the deciding factors. I think the reason posters have given here -- mostly concerning their personal contexts and optional choices -- would tend to confirm that.

I have been thinking of scenarios too: what would I do if my art studio and all my artwork (many years of work) was burning, and my dumb neighbor was caught in the fire? Could I really choose to save my artwork over my neighbor?

I hope so.

I don't know if other people here have also considered these kinds of choices with some suspicion, but if so--here are some clues that I can see to a resolution of the issue:

If the primary goal in an emergency is restoring conditions appropriate to human existence, isn't the preservation of life the highest priority?

WHOSE life. "Life" is always somebody's life. What is more important to YOU -- the hours and days of YOUR LIFE that your artwork represents or the additional hours of life remaining to a neighbor you regard as "dumb?"

[B. Royce 0]

Betsy, I have read so many wonderfully illuminating posts by you, and I certainly would love to hear more you might have to say in this thread. But I do not agree at all that this whole question is just a matter of different personal values.

It may be silly to put so much thought into these emergency situations--they are "marginal and incidental" in life, as Ayn Rand says. But I do think there is a principle here, involving the nature of an emergency situation, that could be made clear.

I have been thinking of scenarios too: what would I do if my art studio and all my artwork (many years of work) was burning, and my dumb neighbor was caught in the fire? Could I really choose to save my artwork over my neighbor?

I don't know if other people here have also considered these kinds of choices with some suspicion, but if so--here are some clues that I can see to a resolution of the issue:

If the primary goal in an emergency is restoring conditions appropriate to human existence, isn't the preservation of life the highest priority?

Basic human life is not an intrinsic value. The principle "never sacrifice a higher value to a lower value" is also not intrinsic--it rests on certain facts. There would be no need for this principle at all, and no values or value hierarchy of any kind, without life.

These things that are leading me to think it could not be right to save something non-living over a living person in an emergency.

Thoughts? If everyone is just tired of this issue and would rather get back to normal, non-emergency life, that is fine with me. I have found it to be an interesting discussion though.

jenbryn, if I may complete (as one possibility) your scenario: Having chosen to save your dumb neighbor, you lose your life's work. The next day you overhear your dumb neighbor tell his friend, "Well, yeah, it was bad, I lost my brand new Bible and my jogging shoes, but at least all those crumby pictures of my dumb neighbor's are outa here."

You can't have your values, or a hierarchy of them, unless you are alive, and you also can't have them unless you act to keep them.

Don't YOU get tired of the issue; keep thinking it through and don't worry about anyone else.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

These things that are leading me to think it could not be right to save something non-living over a living person in an emergency.

The above is, yet again, another assertion of intrinsic value.

In the choice between saving Hitler and the rubber tip from a No. 2 pencil, I would opt for the rubber tip. How about you?

[jenbryn 0]

jenbryn, if I may complete (as one possibility) your scenario: Having chosen to save your dumb neighbor, you lose your life's work. The next day you overhear your dumb neighbor tell his friend, "Well, yeah, it was bad, I lost my brand new Bible and my jogging shoes, but at least all those crumby pictures of my dumb neighbor's are outa here."

You can't have your values, or a hierarchy of them, unless you are alive, and you also can't have them unless you act to keep them.

Don't YOU get tired of the issue; keep thinking it through and don't worry about anyone else.

B. Royce, how do you know my neighbor so well?

My artwork is stored in fireproof metal flat files anyway. That is what really makes the most sense--instead of putting so much thought into wondering what to do in these kinds of crazy scenarios, put the thought into ways to keep irreplaceable things protected.

The above is, yet again, another assertion of intrinsic value.

In the choice between saving Hitler and the rubber tip from a No. 2 pencil, I would opt for the rubber tip. How about you?

Yes, I would save the rubber tip as well.

As far as I know, though, my neighbor hasn't murdered anyone. If he had, that fire scenario would be simple.

[B. Royce 0]

B. Royce, how do you know my neighbor so well?

My artwork is stored in fireproof metal flat files anyway. That is what really makes the most sense--instead of putting so much thought into wondering what to do in these kinds of crazy scenarios, put the thought into ways to keep irreplaceable things protected.

Yes, I would save the rubber tip as well.

As far as I know, though, my neighbor hasn't murdered anyone. If he had, that fire scenario would be simple.

When you first presented your scenario your art work was NOT safe.

The choice IS simple if you really love your artwork.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In the choice between saving Hitler and the rubber tip from a No. 2 pencil, I would opt for the rubber tip. How about you?

Yes, I would save the rubber tip as well.

Okay. So that resolves the issue: you do not think "it could not be right to save something non-living over a living person in an emergency." It is in fact rationally possible to value a non-living thing more than a living person. And, if that is the case, then it is certainly possible to rationally value a living thing more than a living person. Case closed. Do you now agree with this?

As far as I know, though, my neighbor hasn't murdered anyone. If he had, that fire scenario would be simple.

Rational judgments are not always simple, but any alternative means of judging is always worse.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

My artwork is stored in fireproof metal flat files anyway. That is what really makes the most sense--instead of putting so much thought into wondering what to do in these kinds of crazy scenarios, put the thought into ways to keep irreplaceable things protected.

Exactly!

The answer to "Would you choose this value or that value?" is figuring out how to have them BOTH.

[jenbryn 0]

Exactly!

The answer to "Would you choose this value or that value?" is figuring out how to have them BOTH.

That, I can most definitely agree with.

Okay. So that resolves the issue: you do not think "it could not be right to save something non-living over a living person in an emergency." It is in fact rationally possible to value a non-living thing more than a living person. And, if that is the case, then it is certainly possible to rationally value a living thing more than a living person. Case closed. Do you now agree with this?

No, I do not. Why have you brought Hitler into this at all? When would I or anyone else encounter a murderer, let alone Hitler, whose life is in my hands?

I could modify my statement so it excludes people who have taken another person's life. I don't see how this is helpful at all to understanding this issue, though, from a realistic point of view. As I said before, my neighbor is not a murderer. I doubt yours is either.

Are we talking about murderers here, or normal people? I thought the whole point of morality was to know how to live your own life.

The fact is, what I said applies only to a highly improbable emergency situation. This is not an issue central to morality. However, I am not going to say you are right because of Hitler and pencil erasers. I still have the feeling that, in an emergency, letting someone die so I can save something non-living, would be the wrong thing to do. Yes, its a feeling that I am still trying to bring into line with everything else I know is true. I certainly wouldn't act on it if the situation came up, but I am not going to ignore it either.

I don't see how your example helps me (or anyone) understand this question better. If you want to convince me, give me something more realistic to work with than a Hitler scenario.

(If you have better things to do than convince me, I am happy to just continue thinking about the question on my own.)

[RayK 0]

Jennifer,

What I think Stephen is trying to show you (although I could be wrong), is that there is NO intrinsic value in any human to you, me or anyone. The value of someone or something is chosen by each individual according to their value system. A human, any human is not a value until chosen as a value.

If you could put a number from 0-10 on the value of specific people would you give them all a 10? I do not think so as this would wipe out your own rational self-interest. Hitler might be given the lowest value of 0. Your next door neighbor might be given a value of 5. If you had a child or a spouse you might give them a 9.5 or 10, right next to your own life.

Values are that which one acts to gain and or keep. Each individual must choose their own values and prioritize them in accordance to their own value system. If you do not value your own life enough and are willing to wipe out the years of it that were spent producing your life's work, then save your neighbor. On the other hand, if you value the years of your life spent producing your own values then save your life's work. Sometimes you cannot have it both ways and save both, but either way a choice must be made.

[jenbryn 0]

Values are that which one acts to gain and or keep. Each individual must choose their own values and prioritize them in accordance to their own value system. If you do not value your own life enough and are willing to wipe out the years of it that were spent producing your life's work, then save your neighbor. On the other hand, if you value the years of your life spent producing your own values then save your life's work. Sometimes you cannot have it both ways and save both, but either way a choice must be made.

Yes, in my case, I already chose to store my work in fireproof flat files, so that is resolved.

It seems to me that the most essential thing here is: a scenario involving an emergency where both a stranger and a valued possession are in danger, is probably never going to happen anyway. There are far more important things to think about.

On that note, it is a gorgeous day here, and I have paintings to do. Thanks for the discussion.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

No, I do not. Why have you brought Hitler into this at all? When would I or anyone else encounter a murderer, let alone Hitler, whose life is in my hands?

I could modify my statement so it excludes people who have taken another person's life. I don't see how this is helpful at all to understanding this issue, though, from a realistic point of view.

There is an old anecdote attributed to George Bernard Shaw which takes place as he is seated next to a beautiful woman at a dinner party. Shaw is said to have asked the woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. The woman thought a moment and then said that she would. Shaw then asked her if she would sleep with him for one pound. The woman responded by saying she most certainly would not, and, with great indignation, asked "What do you think I am." Shaw said, "We've already established what you are, Madame, we're just negotiating the price."

You can "modify" your statement anyway you like, but the point has already been made that values are not intrinsic and any particluar modification is just negotiating the price. Values are objective, the facts as rationally evaluated. People can rationally evaluate the same facts differently with respect to personal importance, depending on their goals, their purpose, and in consideration of all their other values.

I still have the feeling that, in an emergency, letting someone die so I can save something non-living, would be the wrong thing to do. Yes, its a feeling that I am still trying to bring into line with everything else I know is true.

Whenever I have had feelings that do not correspond to my convictions, I look towards identifying and understanding the source of those feelings. I do not try to bring those contradictory feelings "into line with everything else I know is true," but rather my goal is to dispel the feelings by illuminating them with reason.

I don't see how your example helps me (or anyone) understand this question better. If you want to convince me, give me something more realistic to work with than a Hitler scenario.

(If you have better things to do than convince me, I am happy to just continue thinking about the question on my own.)

This thread is replete with examples and scenarios given by myself and many others. My main purpose in this discussion is not to convince you, but to discuss ideas that I care about to enhance my own understanding, with the hope that such ideas and discussion are of interest to you others. If you do not find my ideas and examples helpful, then you can certainly just ignore them.

[RayK 0]

Yes, in my case, I already chose to store my work in fireproof flat files, so that is resolved.

It seems to me that the most essential thing here is: a scenario involving an emergency where both a stranger and a valued possession are in danger, is probably never going to happen anyway. There are far more important things to think about.

On that note, it is a gorgeous day here, and I have paintings to do. Thanks for the discussion.

Your idea of storing your work in a fireproof flat file is perfectly fine. But, you might have forgoten that this is an emergency and not an everday situation where you actually have the time to put things away. In an emergency you would have to make quick decissions and I doubt that you would have the time to put all your work safely away.

Yes, this scenario is an emergency that might never happen to you, but that is and was the premise of this thread when you decided to put your thoughts in.

Lastly, I would like to point out that within your value system you chose a beautiful day over and above a discussion with humans.

[Paul's Here 0]

For a real life example, read Hillary Blasts Climbers Who Left Dying Man

Mount Everest pioneer Sir Edmund Hillary said Wednesday he was shocked that dozens of climbers left a British mountaineer to die during their own attempts on the world's tallest peak.

David Sharp, 34, died apparently of oxygen deficiency while descending from the summit during a solo climb last week.

More than 40 climbers are thought to have seen him as he lay dying, and almost all continued to the summit without offering assistance.

"Human life is far more important than just getting to the top of a mountain," Hillary was quoted as saying in an interview with New Zealand Press Association.

[PhilO 0]

For a real life example, read Hillary Blasts Climbers Who Left Dying Man

Personally, I would have a very low opinion of somebody who *did* choose to keep climbing without even checking to see if a spare bottle of O2 would mean the difference between life and death, and possibly taking a little while to call for help. One thing that should not be overlooked in this discussion is that people do have the right to whatever value hierarchy they choose - and others have a right to re-adjust those people severely downwards in their own hierarchy as a result of those choices.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

I just read the short story "The Gift of Cochice" by Louis L'Amour for the OCON 06 course "Gems of Short Fiction." It provides a great example of helping a stranger in the context of Frontier life, where gunfights were the way to settle disputes.

SPOILERS

The story relates an incident where one character, Ed, is sitting at a saloon while another man, Ches, who is a total stranger to him, is confronted by three other men, also strangers. The three men accuse Ches of killing their brother. Ches resopnds that the brother had attacked him and he killed him in self defense. The three men don't care and start shooting at Ches. At this point, Ed intervenes on Ches's behalf telling the men that three-against-one is not a fair fight. The three men tell him to keep out of it, but Ed responds that he's in. A gun fight ensues, Ed saves Ches's life by shooting down one man, but is mortally wounded by another. When the smoke clears, Ches is alive and Ed is dying, but he does not regret what he did. Ches feels indebted to Ed for saving his life, and his course of action for the rest of the story is determined by his sense of obligation to Ed's family.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I just read the short story "The Gift of Cochice" by Louis L'Amour for the OCON 06 course "Gems of Short Fiction." It provides a great example of helping a stranger in the context of Frontier life, where gunfights were the way to settle disputes.

SPOILERS

The story relates an incident where one character, Ed, is sitting at a saloon while another man, Ches, who is a total stranger to him, is confronted by three other men, also strangers. The three men accuse Ches of killing their brother. Ches resopnds that the brother had attacked him and he killed him in self defense. The three men don't care and start shooting at Ches. At this point, Ed intervenes on Ches's behalf telling the men that three-against-one is not a fair fight. The three men tell him to keep out of it, but Ed responds that he's in. A gun fight ensues, Ed saves Ches's life by shooting down one man, but is mortally wounded by another. When the smoke clears, Ches is alive and Ed is dying, but he does not regret what he did. Ches feels indebted to Ed for saving his life, and his course of action for the rest of the story is determined by his sense of obligation to Ed's family.

Given the circumstances as described, I for one can proudly say that I would not put my life at such risk for Ches (unless perhaps -- and, this is just perhaps -- I had such confidence in my shooting skill as to make the risk miniscule).

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

Given the circumstances as described, I for one can proudly say that I would not put my life at such risk for Ches (unless perhaps -- and, this is just perhaps -- I had such confidence in my shooting skill as to make the risk miniscule).

Ed's action is not presented as heroic, but as risky. He is the type of person who does not think things through. The hero in the story is Ches, who is determined to find Ed's family and reward them for what Ed did for him. There is also a hint in the story that Ed is not very happy with his life which may be why he risks losing it.