Life and Values

[B. Royce 0]

Your emotions are not the enemy of your values in emergency situations, just as the pain/pleasure mechanism of your senses enable you to withdraw your hand from the flames without having to think about it.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Can you demonstate how someone with whom I am unacquainted with or ignorant of can be a value to me? I'm not talking about a potential value either, but an actual value, as my pet is to me.

A potential value is a type of value, just one that is not currently realized. When considering one's options a potential value can be judged right alongside a current value. For instance, a person who values his current job may choose to leave it for another, not because the other job is a better current value but because of its greater potential.

So you've changed the situation. You're assuming that the stranger can be a potential value to you. So you've personallized the issue and you can not longer classify the person as a complete stranger.

I don't think anything has changed. The person remains a complete stranger -- you know nothing about him except that he is a human being. Think of those people who attend auctions for unclaimed property left in packages or storage bins. They do not know what is inside the package or bin, but they participate in the auction by placing some monetary value on the unknown contents. Those contents are a potential value; a diamond or a left shoe.

[Paul's Here 0]

A potential value is a type of value, just one that is not currently realized. When considering one's options a potential value can be judged right alongside a current value. For instance, a person who values his current job may choose to leave it for another, not because the other job is a better current value but because of its greater potential.

I don't think anything has changed. The person remains a complete stranger -- you know nothing about him except that he is a human being. Think of those people who attend auctions for unclaimed property left in packages or storage bins. They do not know what is inside the package or bin, but they participate in the auction by placing some monetary value on the unknown contents. Those contents are a potential value; a diamond or a left shoe.

Like Rose Lake, I'm beginning to lose what this has to do with the dilemma. Am I to assume to that every sperm and every egg are potential values to me because their combination may create someone who can cure cancer? If that's the case, I'll switch to those who are against killing fertilized eggs for stem cell research.

I'm not denying that under normal conditions, if a stranger's life was in danger and I had time to assess the situation, I'd act to save the life of the stranger simply because he's a human being and regardless of whether he's a potential value to me or not. Nor am I denying the obvious. All values were potential values before one acted to gain and/or keep them. I choose to make them values because I see the connection between the nature of the object and the sustanence of my life. Where is that connection with my choice between the drowning stranger and my drowning dog?

Would they participate in the auction if they knew the contents of the package were stolen property? Most likely, not. So they have made some assumptions about its value and its source. True, the ones putting the goods are strangers, but the value is not the person, it is the good.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

I am losing the thread of what all this has to do with the dilemma.

Perhaps you can address the specifics of the quote stating the problem so we can be sure we're talking about the same issue.

[organon 0]

A question for you all, offered in the context of the moral dilemma originally presented:

Consider a man who, in the choice between running into a burning building (when he can get safely in and out one more time without question, and without any risk whatever to his own life) to save a wounded stranger (who he can, without question, easily save), or to instead (assume he is hungry, as he skipped breakfast, but starvation is not an issue) save a half-finished, tasty sandwich from the flames -- saves the sandwich. Keep in mind – there is no danger whatever to his own life, and he knows this. Saving the sandwich will allow him to skip the expense of lunch, and he is a grad student (concentrating in late eighteenth-century German philosophy) short on cash.

How would you judge him? Would you find him irrational, immoral, and say that his values and judgment in this situation were wrong – in fact, the value of that human life should have exceeded that of a readily available and replaceable sandwich? Do you feel moral reproach toward him for the choice he made, and evaluate him as a moral degenerate, or worse? Why?

[Rose Lake 0]

Right, you have to be "making these numbers up" because you really don't have any numbers, no definite knowledge. You(that is _you_ in general, in this rescue situation) do have the definite knowledge that you value your pet. Your emotions express this, but I did not say that they were your standard of judgment. However, if your mind and values are well-integrated, your emotions (value responses) will help guide you when you have to take quick action.

Your emotions are not the enemy of your values in emergency situations, just as the pain/pleasure mechanism of your senses enable you to withdraw your hand from the flames without having to think about it.

I agree with all of this, particularly with "if your mind and values are well-integrated, your emotions (value responses) will help guide you when you have to take quick action," because insofar as one's emotions are based on reason, they certainly can be helpful (though even rationally-based emotion will not always be immediately helpful in performing a specific rational action, depending on the situation).

Statistical data by its nature is never definite knowledge about a specific instance, which is why its only proper use is in a state when we have no definite knowledge. And this is exactly the situation in regard to a stranger.

The implicit assumption behind proposing this situation as a dilemma, is that there is some reason for considering the stranger at all, in whatever manner is possible to us. If there is no reason whatever to consider the stranger at all, then there is no dilemma, and everyone should simply choose to save his pet.

And the statistical data I was referring to is accumulated experience, maybe but not necessarily held in the form of specific numerical percentages. In an emergency situation, this data may be felt in the form of emotion(s), as a reflection of accumulated past experience.

And my point was, that there is this kind of data, and in addition to that there is another type of information that is non-statistical, i.e. a judgment of man's nature, which might be based on what man might be and ought to be.

That is an interested charge. Perhaps we have a different conception of what the original question was. So let me repeat it.

This example, as I understand it, implies that one has to make a decision and act immediately. Rational action requires that I act to gain and/or keep my values. If my pet and a stanger are drowning, how am I supposed to "consider the stranger" to increase his value to me so that I have sufficient knowledge to save him rather than my pet? Should I wait till he resurfaces from the water and ask him questions while my dog drowns? I'm not sure what to do here. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Okay, I think I can explain how this occurs. I think that all of one's accumulated experience with and knowledge about people, including the values and disvalues one has received from them in the past, and the values and disvalues that one knows (by observation and logic) men are capable of -- are part of one's subconsciously-held context of knowledge that he can bring to bear in considering the stranger when weighing his importance as against a loved pet. In an emergency this will happen very quickly, and most likely by means of emotion, at least to some degree.

And I think that this is why plenty of thought about one's hierarchy of values, in the spare (and non-emergency) hours of one's life is warranted. And I suppose inspiring this kind of analysis is part of the purpose of raising this issue as a dilemma.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But if one does not consider the stranger at all because he knows nothing particular about him, I submit that the pet owner is acting irrationally.

I agree. In an emergency, to not give any consideration at all to a stranger who is a human being, is, in effect, wiping out a large part of reality.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And the point then is: How does one consider something about which the only information he has is "a human stranger." One is in a sort of (hypothetical and temporary) pre-scientific state, in which case relying on statistics certainly seems to me to be one reasonable approach.

What statistics are we talking about here? Are 80% of all people basically rational productive people? 55%? 90%? It's very vague and indefinite.

I'm not sure "statistics" is the best word to capture the flavor of the process involved, but, absent of any other specific information surely we each have some evaluation of the potential value due to a human being. I mean, after all, when I just walk down the street I see many inanimate objects that I constantly evaluate, so it is difficult for me to grasp how it is not possible to evaluate a human being, qua human being.

[B. Royce 0]

I agree with all of this, particularly with "if your mind and values are well-integrated, your emotions (value responses) will help guide you when you have to take quick action," because insofar as one's emotions are based on reason, they certainly can be helpful (though even rationally-based emotion will not always be immediately helpful in performing a specific rational action, depending on the situation).

Statistical data by its nature is never definite knowledge about a specific instance, which is why its only proper use is in a state when we have no definite knowledge. And this is exactly the situation in regard to a stranger.

The implicit assumption behind proposing this situation as a dilemma, is that there is some reason for considering the stranger at all, in whatever manner is possible to us. If there is no reason whatever to consider the stranger at all, then there is no dilemma, and everyone should simply choose to save his pet.

And the statistical data I was referring to is accumulated experience, maybe but not necessarily held in the form of specific numerical percentages. In an emergency situation, this data may be felt in the form of emotion(s), as a reflection of accumulated past experience.

And my point was, that there is this kind of data, and in addition to that there is another type of information that is non-statistical, i.e. a judgment of man's nature, which might be based on what man might be and ought to be.

Okay, I think I can explain how this occurs. I think that all of one's accumulated experience with and knowledge about people, including the values and disvalues one has received from them in the past, and the values and disvalues that one knows (by observation and logic) men are capable of -- are part of one's subconsciously-held context of knowledge that he can bring to bear in considering the stranger when weighing his importance as against a loved pet. In an emergency this will happen very quickly, and most likely by means of emotion, at least to some degree.

And I think that this is why plenty of thought about one's hierarchy of values, in the spare (and non-emergency) hours of one's life is warranted. And I suppose inspiring this kind of analysis is part of the purpose of raising this issue as a dilemma.

Rose, this is an excellent post; clears things up beautifully. Personally, I would certainly consider the stranger, just as, years ago, I ran after two purse snatchers through the woods of Central Park to retrieve a stranger's purse (and got it back).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But if one does not consider the stranger at all because he knows nothing particular about him, I submit that the pet owner is acting irrationally.

That is an interested charge. Perhaps we have a different conception of what the original question was. So let me repeat it.

This example, as I understand it, implies that one has to make a decision and act immediately. Rational action requires that I act to gain and/or keep my values. If my pet and a stanger are drowning, how am I supposed to "consider the stranger" to increase his value to me so that I have sufficient knowledge to save him rather than my pet?

In this scenario you are not expected to "increase his value," since it was specified that you make a decision based on him being a complete stranger. Other than the fact that he is a human being, you do not have knowledge of anything about him to add to your decision (not even knowledge of how he is dressed).

Should I wait till he resurfaces from the water and ask him questions while my dog drowns? I'm not sure what to do here. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

You cannot ask questions, so you have to decide based on evaluating a human stranger in relation to your pet. My own answer is quite clear to me: If I value the pet greater than the potential value of a human being, I save the pet. If not, I save the stranger. Either answer is rational if based on an objective evaluation.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A potential value is a type of value, just one that is not currently realized. When considering one's options a potential value can be judged right alongside a current value. For instance, a person who values his current job may choose to leave it for another, not because the other job is a better current value but because of its greater potential.

Like Rose Lake, I'm beginning to lose what this has to do with the dilemma. Am I to assume to that every sperm and every egg are potential values to me because their combination may create someone who can cure cancer?

Well, yes, in a way. As Peikoff states in Fact and Value, "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action." Your job is to make an objective evaluation.

I'm not denying that under normal conditions, if a stranger's life was in danger and I had time to assess the situation, I'd act to save the life of the stranger simply because he's a human being and regardless of whether he's a potential value to me or not.

The fact that you note you would save the stranger "simply because he's a human being," implies that you have made an evaluation.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A question for you all, offered in the context of the moral dilemma originally presented: ...

I think it is pointless to introduce some other concrete scenario when the issue of the principles already identified have not been addressed. Whatever the circumstances you can conjour up, the principle remains the same: By reference to the facts of reality one must make an objective judgment of the relative values of the choices involved. If one can rationally justify the choice of one over the other, then that is the proper choice. Such choices cannot be made using out-of-context absolutes inherent in the objects to be chosen, and such choices cannot be subjective in nature. Contained within these hundreds and hundreds of posts in this thread, the possibility of the objective nature of choosing the pet has been demonstrated time and time again. If you can demonstrate the same for a sandwich, then best of luck.

[Paul's Here 0]

Like Rose Lake, I'm beginning to lose what this has to do with the dilemma. Am I to assume to that every sperm and every egg are potential values to me because their combination may create someone who can cure cancer?

Well, yes, in a way. As Peikoff states in Fact and Value, "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action." Your job is to make an objective evaluation.

I knew I was opening myself up to that. I'm not going to get into this issue again, now. We've already had a long discussion about this in a previous thread.

The fact that you note you would save the stranger "simply because he's a human being," implies that you have made an evaluation.

Of course, but that is an evaluation that I've made as a premise, i.e., a standing order in my consciousness so that I'm ready to respond in specific situations where no other acquired values are threatened. Also, in an emergency, that standing order is about the bottom of the list in terms of how I'd act with respect to other actual values that might be threatened.

[Paul's Here 0]

---------

In this scenario you are not expected to "increase his value," since it was specified that you make a decision based on him being a complete stranger. Other than the fact that he is a human being, you do not have knowledge of anything about him to add to your decision (not even knowledge of how he is dressed).

You cannot ask questions, so you have to decide based on evaluating a human stranger in relation to your pet. My own answer is quite clear to me: If I value the pet greater than the potential value of a human being, I save the pet. If not, I save the stranger. Either answer is rational if based on an objective evaluation.

I believe I've made that point before (as perhaps you did also), so I agree with you.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I may be just a pest on this topic now, but while dogs are not rational animals, they are certainly a product of rationality. And now, may you all pay homage to Luca ones: Private Eye.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

Shoot! It's Luca Jones. Man...he'll never forgive this...

[organon 0]

(Should you have read them, please ditch all previous posts I have made in the context of my position on the subject.)

In the absence of any information, the only way to make a judgment here is statistically.

If someone should argue, “Simply being a man, gives him greater value,” he is arguing that the nature of the entity alone implies a place in one’s value hierarchy – i.e., value independent of evaluation – and, for a rational man, this does not happen. Value is an answer to the question: to whom? and for what, i.e., in what context is this value rational to him? What end or other value does it serve? In what way does he benefit from its existence or pursuit?

How many men are likely worth saving?

There are no formal tests of which I know which index actualized moral worth in a rational context, and thus no statistics of which I know that might indicate the relevant percentiles. Let us assume that x% of men are good to some considerable degree.

Would I be willing to sacrifice the dog? An offhand estimate:

1%: No!

5%: No!

10%: No.

25%: Probably.

40% and up: without question, yes.

Now, re a baby.

I would not sacrifice the life of my child, even though non-rational, for any existing adult rational entity. There would need to be some proof of existing, actual value – of rationality, of rational values, of worth. But, were this established, and were my wife without question able to give birth again (and the decision to sacrifice the child should certainly involve her if time allows!), and were the man whose life is in question not close to death (and thus likely to agree, if rational, to preserve the child and let him die), yes, I would choose to save the man.

Would the same judgment profile apply for the baby, as for the dog? Of course not. My baby is of greater value to me than my dog. So, an offhand estimate, in my case:

Below 35%: No.

35%-50%: Maybe.

Greater than 50%: Yes. Again, given my wife can produce another, and, if time allows, she consents.

Another point:

Let us assume we know the man in danger is very good, but he is a baker in North Dakota (assume I live in Manhattan) with an IQ of 90, that I will never again encounter, and from whose existence, in all likelihood, I will never benefit from. He will never create anything, in all likelihood, that will enhance my life. Then: how do I answer the: for what? In what rational way is the existence of this man a value to me?

This: simply knowing that he is good, that he exists somewhere, and that I am responsible for that existence. A rational life is a light, to itself to the good men around it. Knowing that he continues to exist by virtue of my act, which (let us assume) costs me nothing but time and involves no fundamental risk, is something that I value.

[Laure 0]

I'm coming late to the discussion (this thread is from two years ago??), but here's my take.

I am not my brother's keeper. It's not my fault the guy is drowning; let him save himself, or let someone who cares about him save him. On the other hand, I AM my rabbit's keeper. He's my responsibility. I would save him.

If you change the scenario, and have a madman holding my rabbit and a random stranger hostage (through no fault of his own), and the madman asks me to choose which one he's going to shoot, I'd have him shoot the rabbit. I think.

[organon 0]

I'm coming late to the discussion (this thread is from two years ago??), but here's my take.

I am not my brother's keeper. It's not my fault the guy is drowning; let him save himself, or let someone who cares about him save him. On the other hand, I AM my rabbit's keeper. He's my responsibility. I would save him.

If you change the scenario, and have a madman holding my rabbit and a random stranger hostage (through no fault of his own), and the madman asks me to choose which one he's going to shoot, I'd have him shoot the rabbit. I think.

Laure, though he is a stranger, is the probability of his having value irrelevant? Assune that you live in an area where, statistically, 75% of men are rational, productive, good -- the sort of men you would hold as friends, or more. Would you still choose the rabbit?

[organon 0]

Now, re a baby.

I would not sacrifice the life of my child, even though non-rational, for any existing adult rational entity. There would need to be some proof of existing, actual value – of rationality, of rational values, of worth.

This should read:

"There would need to be some significant likelihood...."

[Arnold 0]

Since we are all reasonable people here, it is understandable that we want to have a reason for our actions. This particular ethical question makes that very tough, because it forces us to come up with a reason to give up a value for a stranger. This 'statistical' argument is an example. Other examples place an intrinsic value on human life.

Quite frankly I don't think one can justify their action this way, and the effort to justify that no sacrifice is involved, strikes me as rationalizing. To give up a loved pet is giving up a value that is not obvious in the return.

My position has been one that refers back to our nature as humans. Evolution has favoured those humans who were social and assisted one another. In normal humans, a capacity for empathy is inborn, and will develop in a normal social environment. Like the capacity for speech, it will not develop without learning from those around one.

One can see this empathy in a related way, by the relationship between animals and their young. If they didn't feel some sort of attachment, the young would not survive, and that gene would die out. I contend that humans similarly have an inborn capacity that normally develops into empathy with fellow humans.

Is that empathy considered inborn knowledge? No, neither is it necessarily reasonable in all contexts. All I am saying, is that empathy is the most likely basis for why we feel the necessity to help a stranger. Humans have found it makes life easier with such mutual co-operation.

Whether I would sacrifice my pet for a total stranger would depend on my identifying with the person in trouble, not on how much value he has to me. It is the human connection that I don't want to lose, and I am prepared to pay a certain price for it, depending on the situation.

[Laure 0]

... Whether I would sacrifice my pet for a total stranger would depend on my identifying with the person in trouble, not on how much value he has to me. It is the human connection that I don't want to lose, and I am prepared to pay a certain price for it, depending on the situation.

I agree. It really depends on the situation. The way the poll was worded, my reaction is, "it's not my fault that idiot got himself into trouble, but it's my responsibility that my pet is in danger." If you change the situation and take out the causes... I'm driving along and suddenly out of nowhere my pet and a human stranger magically appear in my path, and I can only avoid hitting one of them, I'd avoid hitting the human. But it wouldn't be a calculation, it'd be a split-second reaction.

[organon 0]

Whether I would sacrifice my pet for a total stranger would depend on my identifying with the person in trouble, not on how much value he has to me. It is the human connection that I don't want to lose, and I am prepared to pay a certain price for it, depending on the situation.

Hello Arnold,

I am unsure what this means. What is entailed by "identifying with the person in trouble", assuming that one has no other information but that he is a man? What is "the human connection"? Is it a recognition of your common humanity? But this tells us nothing -- for a rational being, value is achieved, it is the product of one's choices, fundamentally, in regard to the method by which one operates one's mind.

[PhilO 0]

I am unsure what this means. What is entailed by "identifying with the person in trouble", assuming that one has no other information but that he is a man? What is "the human connection"? Is it a recognition of your common humanity? But this tells us nothing -- for a rational being, value is achieved, it is the product of one's choices, fundamentally, in regard to the method by which one operates one's mind.

Not to speak for Arnold, but personally it would make a difference to me if the human in trouble was evidently, by simple observation and assessment, a drunken homeless bum (or worse, say Al Gore or Janet Reno), vs. a normal looking civilized person.

[Laure 0]

To me, "identifying with the person in trouble" means feeling that it could just as easily have been me. If, in my judgment, the person was in trouble through some bad choice that he made, I would evaluate it as being "his problem", not mine.

Also, I make a distinction between a situation in which I can either save my pet or a random stranger, and a situation in which I am forced to cause the death of my pet or a random stranger. If I don't save someone from drowning, I wouldn't feel that I caused his death. I didn't put him in that situation. He ought to save himself.

People like to discuss these weird scenarios, and they're interesting, but these things don't come up that often in real life.