Virtues speaking metaphysically are constants. Freedom, happiness, love and productiveness are all examples. However, values are products of virtues (abstractly speaking) and/or property(materially speaking)which exist often in a moment in time. Eg, a child does not want a house or high paying job, an adolescent does not want to be alone on Friday night, an adult does not want a toy or to desperately know what everyone thinks of him. With this in mind, to propose that a life commitment to another being is an act of integrity to ones hierarchy of values to me is preposterous. I think to value someone, to commit to them strongly or to die for them because life would be agony without, is a decision based on a hierarchy of values with what you have.
This is not pragmatism. Here is why.
To propose you should commit your entire time line of existence to a value, which you find in another person is committing an epistemological (hows that for wankery) error. I.e. your confusing the metaphysical nature of virtue (time constant) and value (moment in time).

kkulak

Reed: "If your child needed some transplant or they would die, is it ethical to take an essential organ from someone else to save your childs life?"

Glen: "Yep, as long as you have the donor’s consent."

Ah.... Would you (glen) not be then accepting someone else's act of sacrifice.

kkulak

This is simple. If my child is dying, I wouldn't sacrifice a billion people to save him. If a billion people are dying, I wouldn't sacrifice my child to save them. It just isn't right to kill anyone for whatever reason.

Not always, I'm just saying that in many cases it does happen that you value the person that much. I'm not saying this would happen with every person you'll ever date or even any particular person you'll ever have a relationship with.

It's more just my take on the response I got on the thread I mentioned. Which was basically if you don't understand why it's a good idea, YOU shouldn't do it. I'm saying that there are circumstances where two people CAN value each other enough that this isn't even really a question if the moment ever arises. I'm also saying this level of valuing is somewhat rare (though most of the couples I know who've been married for a number of decades have this level of committment which I'll offer as my only qualifier).

Again this is a long way of saying that some people are in a situation where they value another person that highly, many more are not, and each person's personal value heirarchy should determine their answer to this question, but the key thing is that both answers can be perfectly appropriate depending on the particular context of the person making the decision.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Jesus' loss is his suffering and death? So are you trying to say his loss was his happiness and life?

"The great value is the continued existence of believers."??? From what biblical account is that? Are you suggesting that all the believers would have been carried off in a rapture if he hadn't gone to the cross?

I'm sorry, Reed - I want to understand you, but I'm just not getting it in plain English.

The great loss is Jesus suffering and death and the greater value is the continued existence of believers.

what exactly is the "great loss" and the "even greater value"?

Glenn: I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid being pinned down, or simply have a massive knowledge gap.

Well I have some knowledge gap... because I don't know what problem you have with what I said. I'll rephrase and hope that it is clearer for you.

3) Christ’s sacrifice was:
a) the forfeiture of a great value Accepting a great loss for an even greater value.

Where the great loss is his suffering and death. I don't want you to misunderstand me - when I say "death" in this context, I am talking about the event not a permanent state of non existence.

No, they're not the same thing, unless your think yourself a murderer because you're not doing something to prevent the deaths of those in places like Darfur. In "Sophie's Choice" Sophie wasn't responsible for her daughter's death because she chose her son instead; the guilt rests with the Nazi officer specifically, and the Nazi regime generally for creating the context in which an act of evil like this could occur. The problem with Pender's hypothetical is the lack of context - which is why this abstract continues to float all over the place.

You're making no sense whatsoever, Reed. If you don't know the meaning of the word forfeit (and haven't bothered to find out) then I'm wasting my time conversing with you.

Reed: 'Where "forfeiture of a great value" is his suffering and death (the event not a permanent state).'

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid being pinned down, or simply have a massive knowledge gap.

Thanks! It's good to be here.

I'm glad you said no, and I would say most people would say the same. But now I pose to you this: Is not killing 1 billion people, and consciously not preventing their deaths (when you could) the same? Either way, you are responsible for their deaths, are you not? And if you are, then by the same token by not killing those 1 billion people to save your child's life, you've just killed your child. How do you get around this moral dilemma?

Emma-
No. Killing 1 billion people means not just choosing not to act to save people from an outside threat, but clear initiation of force against others. I don't expect any Objectivist to answer yes. The contextual nature of ethics does pose some interesting questions, though, and you may be trying to investigate the same question I was with a much less drastic question about whether would you kill in 'self-defense' against a property when committing burglary to feed your child.

BTW, welcome to SOLO!

Landon-
My girlfriend and I agreed to be willing to lose a toe pushing the other out of the way of an oncoming bus - at least depending on the toe. I might go further and even lose a joint or two of my left pinky.

I'm not sure I follow your comments on monogamy and commitment here. Are you saying that you think monogamy or at least lifelong commitment to monogamy should go hand-in-hand with being willing to die for your significant other?

Glenn -
1) Jesus chose to forfeit his life for the sake of all the world's sinners because he valued...
I expect when you say "forfeit his life" you are meaning something like "chose not to exist". If that is what you mean then I would answer e) none of the above. Jesus knew he would be raised again. He suffered and died and took the punishment for all... there is also more to this but that would require long explanations.

2) Granted a similar opportunity by God you would choose to forfeit your life for the sake of the all the world’s sinners because you value...
I find that a strange question that I can't answer easily. Again I'm uncertain what you mean by "forfeit your life" and in this context I'm also unsure what you mean by "for the sake of". Jesus already paid the price for all sinners and there is no value I could add in a similar situation.
Assuming by "for the sake of" you mean "for atonement of" then it is not possible and the answer would be e) none of the above.

3) Christ’s sacrifice was:
a) the forfeiture of a great value for an even greater value
Where "forfeiture of a great value" is his suffering and death (the event not a permanent state).

4) You think Christianity is principally about...
e)God (I think most christians would say "Christianity is principally about Jesus").
I would go further than your question and say everything is principally about God.

5) You consider yourself to be:
a)mostly Christian
I haven't been influenced by objectivism but it does line up with the way I think in some areas - there are some areas where I see error.

if the one billion were a threat (i.e. Islamic jihadists), otherwise no as this would be a contravention of the non-force principle.

Would you kill 1 billion people to save your child's life?

(this may have been covered already - I'm not going to read all your comments, so apologies if it has)

I remember coming in on the monogamy side of a recent polyamory debate you were involved in. My frame of reference is that I value my current relationship more than the perspective value I could potentially recieve from searching out new relationships vs. the destructive potential of such action to my current value (relationship).

The way I look at it is that I have someone I'm ready to die for if necessary, she means THAT much to me. If there's no one you feel that strongly for in your life, then by all means you should never put yourself in a position to do so (give up your life for someone).

I'm the same way when I get into discussions on the virtue of committment/marriage, if you don't feel strongly enough about someone to commit to them for the rest of your life, you really shouldn't be doing it.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I'm surprised by Objectivists saying there is any context they'd give up their life for a child or lover. While I can see taking calculated risks of losing your life vs having a lower quality of life losing someone you highly value, when the probability of death is 100% the 'tradeoff' just doesn't make sense. Then you are talking about knowingly giving up all your values to save one (which you then won't be able to enjoy). Talk about sacrifice!

It'll take me little while to respond.

Reed - I’ll be able to clarify your perspective if you could humour me by answering the following:

1) Jesus chose to forfeit his life for the sake of all the world's sinners because he valued:

a) the life of robbers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. more than his own life
b) the life of robbers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. more than his family and friends
c) the life of the robbers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. more than his disciples
d) all of the above

2) Granted a similar opportunity by God you would choose to forfeit your life for the sake of the all the world’s sinners because you value:

a) the life of robbers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. more than your own life
b) the life of the robbers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. more than your family and friends
c) all of the above
d) none of the above - they’re all bastards who deserve to burn in hell

3) Christ’s sacrifice was:

a) the forfeiture of a great value for an even greater value
b) the forfeiture of a minor value for a great value
c) the forfeiture of a great value for a lesser value
d) the forfeiture of a great value for an equally great value

4) You think Christianity is principally about:

a) unconditional love
b) conditional love
c) selfless love
d) selfish love

5) You consider yourself to be:

a) mostly Christian
b) mostly Objectivist
c) half Christian/half Objectivist
d) not sure

The question is would you give your own children's lives to save that boy? The first rule of concept formation is measurment ommision when it's as simple as letting your child die or letting a stranger die would you still choose to do it.
No.

The thrust of my idea is that if I had followed through with the scenario, I wouldn't be the man (hero) who saved x amount of people, I'd be the monster who let my wife die and I'd never be anything but that in my own eyes ever again.

And of course you feel "something" when you hear of instances like that. I feel horrible when I hear about the victims of dictatorships, the victims of individual criminals, and the victims of natural disasters. In cases where help can be offered where no sacrifice is involved (such as fot the first example, political activism, in the second pointers to people on how not to be a target, or the third whatever money or effort I can spare in an emergency).

But the key thing is I don't feel anything for someone who is living in arizona right now who just stubbed their toe, or someone in england who just made a killing on a stock trade. If confronted with facts like these the most reaction I'll have is something akin to "isn't that sad?" or "Isn't that happy?" I feel nothing profoundly personal for other individuals

The question is would you give your own children's lives to save that boy? The first rule of concept formation is measurment ommision when it's as simple as letting your child die or letting a stranger die would you still choose to do it.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Glenn -
To be honest, Reed, I'm not entirely sure what your perspective is... could you try and explain it without using the word sacrifice - and without trying to cover anyone else's interpretation?
I thought I had covered it. I can rephrase but I'll have to see how I get on for time. What was it in particular that interests you? If it is my interpretation of the bible that interests you then that might require more time than I can commit.

Claudia -
There is no condition I can think of that would make me stop loving my kids, I doubt that you are any different in that regard, but I also think there are some actions they could take that would make them deserving of death so I don't think unconditional love comes in to it.

Landon -
Compare that to the possibility that you would save a large number of people, for whom you rightfully felt nothing, nothing positive nothing negative you just have no response to them.
Yesterday on the news there was a report about a 13 year old that got off a school bus, stepped in front of a truck and was killed. Rightly or wrongly, I feel something when I think about the kid, his family, the driver and his friends on the bus.

I could understand your perspective if we were comparing monetary wealth to a persons life but I cant see it when comparing lives.

I wouldn't go that far... I'd try and persuade the owner to part with his food (can't think where I might be where I wouldn't have been able to persuade someone already) and if he said no, then I'd try the house next door.

But enough of this silly hypothetical.... let's get on with reality.

"In answer to your supplementary hypotheticals: yes, I would steal to save my child, provided the thing I was stealing wouldn’t kill anyone – then, once I’d saved her, I wouldn’t rest until I had repaid the debt. I can’t think of a context in which I’d have to hurt someone to save her."

Think of the context of you breaking into a house or store you thought unoccupied to steal food for your child - and then are surprised to find the owner still there, armed, and intent on defending his property against thieves. Would you add murder to your breaking and entering and theft? (Lest you think may wording's accusing or leading you - I think I would, yet also would expect a trial and likely execution after)

I'd gladly take a bullet for my daughters, because nothing would be more painful than losing them.

But the idea of doing that for a nobody - or worse, a scumbag (as Jesus did) - is obscene.

To be honest, Reed, I'm not entirely sure what your perspective is... could you try and explain it without using the word sacrifice - and without trying to cover anyone else's interpretation? (Promise I won't refer to them either).

No amount of arguing definitions or hierarchy of values will bear any fruit in this discussion if you hold the idea that unconditional love is a virtue. That is the concept that this discussion really spins on.

It's about heirarchy of value. It's not simply about numbers it's about what each one means to you personally. Losing a child or a lover could be something which would make your life unlivable especially if you knew that you were the reason that you lost them.

Compare that to the possibility that you would save a large number of people, for whom you rightfully felt nothing, nothing positive nothing negative you just have no response to them.

If you wind up saving something you feel nothing for (because no person involved has any direct tie to you) over something which is one of your highest values, I think only a monster could live with that.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Glenn -
I could sit here all day trying to convince you that you're working with flimsy definitions but Ayn's already nailed it - irrefutably.

If you convinced me the definitions were incorrect I would have to use different words to explain the same perspective but it wouldn't change the substance. That's why arguing the definition of words doesn't interest me. I only discussed the words to identify ambiguities/equivocations.

WRT - Wishy washyness (AKA objectivity)
If I am presenting my own perspective only, you might say "I think the other christians have it right". If I am presenting the "christian" perspective I have to acknowledge differences of opinions and also that part of what we are talking about is more complex than portrayed. If that makes me wishy washy then wishy washy I'll be.

Don't forget these questions...
Would you die for anyone?
If so, how would you justify it?

... and one more for everybody...
Could love be a good enough reason for anyone to die for someone?

It's a fantastic read, Reed. I could sit here all day trying to convince you that you're working with flimsy definitions, but Ayn's already nailed it - irrefutably.

There are no contradictions. The definition of sacrifice you're using is false - objectively speaking. You're either going to be an Objectivist or a Christian - or the worst case scenario, a man without conviction making himself crazy trying to reconcile the opposing halves of his philosophy.

Your conflict is apparent in your writing, observing things from a wishy-washy 3rd person perspective, not stating exactly what YOU believe but rather what THEY - the Christians - believe, and even then it's 'variable':

"… but I think all sacrifices from the believers perspective… From a christian perspective, originally, sacrifices were a cost/payment or punishment for doing wrong. Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, paid the cost for all of our wrong doings*... A believer doesn't see a loss making deal but an non believer does.

*Doctrines vary and special conditions may apply."

You seem like a good man, Reed. I wish for you the peace of integration.

Landon -
I was asking a slightly different question.

If someone who views this life as the only one, chooses to save the billion over the one they love, what is evil about that?

[Edit: Note that I don't consider my position to be dependent on there being an afterlife.]

Stand your ground, man
What ground? If you are you referring to the ground you have prepared for me then I respectfully decline your advice.

You seem to have grasped the virtue of selfishness...
I don't consider it a virtue, it just happens, no effort is required and no effort can prevent it.
Love makes a bit of a paradox of selfishness ie. What we want is what is good for the other(s). Would you die for anyone? If so, how would you justify it?
Doing something "wrong" to benefit ourselves is a type of selfishness that I oppose. I expect objectists would agree with that statement (while disagreeing with my perspective of "wrong") but may not like to use the word "selfishness" to describe it.

... but are unable to reconcile the evil of sacrifice.
As far as I can tell, I oppose the type of sacrifice you oppose but I don't view sacrifice as a bad thing because I use the word to express a different meaning than you are expecting.

Don't run, I want you to put up a logical argument to refute my point regarding definition #2.
Sacrifices are used in other religions too but I think all sacrifices from the believers perspective are exchanges of a lesser value for a greater value. From the non believers perspective the sacrifice is a waste so as a result we have two contradictory definitions of the word "sacrifice".
From a christian perspective, originally, sacrifices were a cost/payment or punishment for doing wrong. Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, paid the cost for all of our wrong doings*. Sounds like a sermon doesn't it. The sacrifice(s) was/were paid for atonement. A believer doesn't see a loss making deal but an non believer does.

*Doctrines vary and special conditions may apply.

Claudia covered it pretty well (the negatvive side at least) but I'll cover the positive side.

If you view this life as the only one life is the source of all your values and the values you experience in your life are the only ones you're ever going to get.

If you think there's a paradise waiting for your loved ones, giving up their life in a tough situation isn't that big of a deal.

But if you're looking at it from the standpoint that you (and everyone else) gets this life and nothing else. You're talking the difference between spending most of your life with a person is your highest value, or taking all their values away from them and knowing for the rest of your time in existance that you cost them that, as well as costing yourself the time you would have with them, possibly even at the cost of making your life so miserable that it was unlivable.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

if one holds the belief that we have another life - a better life - waiting for us after we die, it diminishes the value of the life we have now.

It is this belief, among others, that permits a suicide bomber to dispense of this life because he has paradise waiting with 40 virgins gagging for it.

It is also this belief that saw people burned at the stake for heresy, as a last ditch attempt to save their souls from hell.

It is also this belief that gives many folk permission to give up and live half-lived lives because the more glorious one is still to follow.

Landon -
To someone who holds this life AND ONLY THIS LIFE as existing treating life and death in a this manner is an unspeakable evil.

I don't understand. Can you explain the objectivist concept of evil for me in this context?

Cheers

Reed

It's a shame you think I'm being insincere, Reed, when I am genuinely (and patiently) answering your questions in an effort to enlighten you to a widely held misconception of the word. Sacrifice, self-sacrifice and selflessness have been held up as virtues by definition-twisting religious nutters dating back to the crucifixion, which have naturally made their way into our dictionaries. You seem to have grasped the virtue of selfishness but are unable to reconcile the evil of sacrifice.

Don't run, I want you to put up a logical argument to refute my point regarding definition #2.

Love is not unconditional: If one of my daughters turned out to be a serial killer she would cease to be a value altogether. But right now, they're downstairs playing and giggling together and they remain at the very top.

I'm still at a loss as to how I've misrepresented you.

Pender… If you read my previous posts you’ll gather that I do not advocate the murder of an innocent stranger to save my child. I assumed your hypothetical didn’t involve force…

In answer to your supplementary hypotheticals: yes, I would steal to save my child, provided the thing I was stealing wouldn’t kill anyone – then, once I’d saved her, I wouldn’t rest until I had repaid the debt. I can’t think of a context in which I’d have to hurt someone to save her.

That being said Reed there is a bit of a defense for your arguement IF and only if it comes from a theist who holds that belief, then it can be held as moral on an internally consistant level. To someone who holds this life AND ONLY THIS LIFE as existing treating life and death in a this manner is an unspeakable evil.

This is part of the reason you'll never read an article about an atheist serial killer. At least one who doesn't "convert" in prison.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

How do you weight the life and well-being of your child against the objectivist principle of non-force/-coercion?

To what degree would you actively violate the rights of others in order to save your child (or yourself)? Where and how do you draw the line?

Would you steal? Would you hurt others? (not self-defense) Would you never violate any right?

Glenn -
I'm not going to argue the meaning of a word but you can look up "sacrifice" and see if you find the same meanings I did.

Anyway, can you really imagine the god of the Jews doing loss making deals and then telling his followers to do the same?

My leap of logic...
If you value your childs life infinitely greater than that of a stranger and your childs life value varies (ie. not infinite), depending on their actions, then, it follows, that the value of a strangers life, to you, is nil.

Reed: As for the rest of your post, you mustn't understand me correctly if that is the best (mis)representation of my perspective you can manage.
Glenn: I'm not sure what more there is to discuss or how it has misrepresented you.

You win Glenn... I am actually impressed with your previous argument and it is an excellent misrepresentation of my perspective. It's a cleverly done but insincere (IMO) equivocal straw man argument that covers the entire gospel. You are then extending your argument regarding Jesus and applying it to all christians. It would take a lot of time to explain fully but, fundamentally, you haven't even considered that christians don't view death as permanent**.

Cheers,

Reed

**Doctrines may vary.

"2. To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value."

That definition is false: it says giving up anything is a sacrifice – which is plainly ridiculous. Is forfeiting a sheep’s dung for a diamond a sacrifice?

People get confused with dilemmas where they hold two high values and have to relinquish one of them. You hear it on the news all the time: “The sportsman sacrificed his career to pursue his love for the game.” “The woman sacrificed one of her kidneys to save her child’s life.”

They didn’t sacrifice anything: they simply couldn’t have their cake and eat it too, and had to make a reasoned and rational choice.

”...Hitler, Mao, Stalin, bin Laden and Graham Caphill... If you don't value the people these guys hurt then why would you consider them evil?”

Who said I didn’t care about the lives of their victims? While you’re making these leaps I think we should leave Claudia out of this.

”As for the rest of your post, you mustn't understand me correctly if that is the best (mis)representation of my perspective you can manage.”

I’m not sure what more there is to discuss or how it has misrepresented you.

Glenn -
...sacrifice (the giving up of a higher value for a lesser value)
I'd only ever seen sacrifice described like that in objectivists writings.

Definitions of sacrifice from an online dictionary.
1. To offer as a sacrifice to a deity.
2. To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value.
3. To sell or give away at a loss.

Definitions 1 and 2 (combined) are consistent with my understanding of christian sacrifice. Number 3 is just bad business. Sacrifice also refers to atonement.

...Hitler, Mao, Stalin, bin Laden and Graham Caphill...
If you don't value the people these guys hurt then why would you consider them evil?

... I think the selfless Christians have it right...

It is an interesting question about whether Jesus was obligated. One I've never considered. I'll be interested to see what Claudia comes up with now that you've volunteered her for bible study duty. Also if she is going to assess Jesus' sacrifice she will need to figure out who made what gains and losses.

As for the rest of your post, you mustn't understand me correctly if that is the best (mis)representation of my perspective you can manage.

FYI: I agree with you and Aaron that the billion don't deserve to be saved.

Regarding The Survivors, Aaron - not bleak at all, surprisingly. It's part sociological, part technological – a study of how a small community would go about regenerating civilization. Every episode explores man’s ability to adapt to new conditions, with every member of the tiny community using their skills to the fullest. Forced to return to the agrarian lifestyle, they invent new ways to restore the mod cons they’d taken for granted before the outbreak, like making methane generators to run appliances. It’s very philosophical in nature, exploring all sorts of moral dilemmas. A recurring issue is breeding; they have to persuade all the woman to keep making babies in order to guarantee the continuance of humanity, which is teetering on extinction. And then there are the roaming barbarians – a stark contrast to their micro-civilization.

Brilliant! Ripe for an Objectivist rewrite!

Aaron,

You have a point. The only reason increasing the number of strangers could alter ones decision is the possibility of other side effects. Ofcourse, those who subscribe to an "altruist" philosophy know choosing one stranger over a loved one is plain bonkers, hence the need for an absurd hypothetical with a billion strangers where they can make their choice, safe in the knowledge that they will never be called on to make that decision in reality.


Jameson,

There are no gods. I'm sure there is a scientific explanation to my resolution, but that discussion is OT for this thread.

...in his mind he determined specimens likes Hitler, Mao, Stalin, bin Laden and Graham Caphill to be worth dying for; and in his heart he loved them more than Peter, Paul and Mary (or was it John, Paul, George and Ringo?) put together.

Nice concretization.

Jameson, Suma-
If Pender's hypothetical could be made somehow on Alpha Centauri, or whatever, so that they wouldn't know, threaten me, etc. then sure, I say prefer the one person I know and love over a billion of them. I think that's the question he's probably aiming at - it's just insanely difficult to make up a semi-plausible scenario to isolate that kind of choice. Even in the disease hypothetical on earth I'd choose my child at a point of 1000 or one million strangers. However, 1/6 the world's population desperate, fearful and dying (even confined to Asia, where 6 of the world's nuclear powers are)... that gets to the point of expecting further widespread massive death and civilization collapse. Really, the 'what if' concerning such a horrific situation was simply more interesting than the 'dilemma' Pender was seeking to pose. And damn that looks like an interesting - but bleak! - series Jameson!

I'll have to defer to the lovely ex-Calvinist Claudia for bible references, but my understanding of Christianity is that it's enshrined in the act of sacrifice (the giving up of a higher value for a lesser value) - starting with Christ himself.

Now, if I understand correctly your selfish Christian concept, you'd argue that Christ was not obliged to be flayed alive and crucified for the sake of all the world’s sinners; he chose to out of love for them - and so therefore it was a selfish motive. In other words, he valued the lives of the world's sickest, darkest, most depraved human detritus more than his own life; in his mind he determined specimens likes Hitler, Mao, Stalin, bin Laden and Graham Caphill to be worth dying for; and in his heart he loved them more than Peter, Paul and Mary (or was it John, Paul, George and Ringo?) put together.

That is indeed a grave sacrifice, Brother Reed; a selfless act like no other.

I think the selfless Christians have it right - and you’re conflicted.

Glenn -
The clarification has me more confused than the original comment.

I can't figure out the christian principle you are talking about so I will explain my christian perspective.

Note: Altruism is not a word you will find in the bible but some altruistic ideas come from the christian perspective of love.

According to Gal 5:4 - "Love others as you love yourself" is a summary of the law, so, the law doesn't require me to love others above myself which seems to be the idea you have.

There is also this... "Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends" - It's something to be admired but I don't see this as an obligation. Corporal Apiatas action was in this category. I think you too would put your life on the line for your family.

There are also parts in the bible about "dieing to self". Now a self sacrificing misery bag that wants you to be miserable too hasn't achieved this. The person I know who is closest to achieving "dieing to self" is happy, laughs a lot and gets more value out of giving stuff away (even to strangers) than she would ever get from keeping it. She lives love.

What I have described is my view of (christian) love.
In what way do objectivist principles oppose (christian) love?

Now my wife and I have a long way to go with "dieing to self" but can you understand how having people around with attitudes like this makes my life richer?

WRT - Selfishness - IMO everyone is selfish, they may not realise it, even the hypothetical misery bag is selfish (expectations of reward in heaven or something). If I can change my attitude so that I get more from giving than from having then I can be selfless, in a way, but I still wont have escaped my sefishness. In objectivist terms, would that make Selfishness vs Selflessness a false dichotomy?

To clarify: you are being objective to the Christian principle that it is more virtuous put others before yourself, which is antithetical to Objectivist principles.

So, you’re a selfish Christian – which is, as I say, a living contradiction. And yes, to value the lives of strangers more than the life of the one you love is morally wrong – and thoroughly selfless.

You say your wife values the lives of strangers more than her own life, and this makes you richer how?

The driver was obligated to avoid causing the deaths of others; he is not taking his own life, per se, he is simply choosing to accept the consequence of the accident.

Reed: From my perspective saving the billion people is better than saving the one person, even though it would come at a huge cost to myself. Isn't this more objective than the opposing view?
Glenn: Yes, to a Christian who values the lives of complete strangers more than the one he loves. I'd hate to be your son, sir.

Yes? Are you saying I'm being more objective... subjectively?

Reed: I don't know any christians that would say he was morally obligated, you must be mixing with a bad crowd.
Glenn: Really... and how many Christians do you know who stand up in church and proudly announce how rationally selfish they are?

I do know some crazies, but none like the person you describe.

Glenn: You're a living contradiction, Reed: your first quote above smacks of altruism, the code that says we are morally obligated to selflessly save strangers before we selfishly protect those we value.

Notice in my second post I specifically excluded "obligation" as motive.

Whatever I do, when I examine my motives they are selfish, what we are talking about is a different method of valuation. As far as I can tell everyone has their own method of valuation. Is there something morally wrong with my method?

Glenn: The problem with universal Christian love is this: loving everyone makes the love of someone close to you entirely meaningless. The moment you say, "I love all, but I love my wife more!" is the moment you begin identifying your hierarchy of values - which will come in handy when you have to make a call on who you save. You also seem to have a problem with scale: if the number of strangers is great enough you will, no matter how unhappily, sacrifice your wife...

My wife would choose to let the billion people live and, while I live, I am richer for it.

Glenn: ...In which case I'd also hate to be your wife, sir.

I'm over the rejection but, actually, I thought you were a bloke.

Glennis: Finally, regarding your driver story: all things being equal, if the accident was entirely unavoidable and it came down to saving himself by bumping the strangers' teetering car off the cliff, or avoiding them and heading over the cliff himself... I'd say he made the right call. If he was in control of his car enough to make the decision he still had an obligation to avoid hitting the vehicle in front. Christians will see this as an act of noble sacrifice; Objectivists will see it as an act of a man in control of his fate and adhering to the principle of non-force: a hero for his unfaltering acceptance of reality no matter how inconvenient it may be.

Is he obligated to take his own life in the situation you describe?

That solution, Suma, in screenwriting terms, is know as a cheat.

You forget the 1 billion people can be contained in Asia. How can you live with yourself, knowing you killed your child?


The correct answer to the dilemma was unwittingly provided by Matty Orchard in another thread. When he (and Will Smith) upload the virus to the alien ship's computer, both the child and the billion people are magically cured.

I think our little bat-bat has highlighted the futility of such hypotheticals. In a scenario like this, there wouldn't be any real winners. BTW, ever see that excellent TV series, "The Survivors"?

Season One's logline: "Dying is easy. Surviving is hard." This is a show they should remake.

They don't deserve to be saved. It's just that the detrimental side effects of 1 billion people dying of disease in that timeframe would likely also end my life or at least reduce it to one of impoverished paranoid survivalism. Rational self-interest in face of a terrible scenario - and valuing my own life even higher than that of the child.

Why do they deserve to be saved? Frankly I think it could be the great forest fire that provides the opportunity for great regrowth - in which case we'd need all the Objectivists we can raise. Starting with one child.

I know these questions are outliers and don't constitute a basis for normal morality.. but what the heck, they can be kind of fun.

I'd save the billion people. Not because I'm an altruist, but because I'd consider perspective of what a hell the world would become with 1 billion ensured dying within 3 weeks from disease. Panic, standard of living collapse, everyone acting in paranoid emergency mode, government police state control essentially everywhere, irrational scapegoating of various unpopular groups, riots, looting, likely world wars. I'd expect billions more, including with reasonable probability myself, to die in the ensuing chaos.

Miraculous or otherwise, the cure belongs to its creator - he can do what what the hell he likes with it.

As an Objectivist who has his hierarchy of values in place, I'd save my child.

For an altruist this hypothetical is also a no brainer.

Reed: "From my perspective saving the billion people is better than saving the one person, even though it would come at a huge cost to myself. Isn't this more objective than the opposing view?"

Yes, to a Christian who values the lives of complete strangers more than the one he loves. I'd hate to be your son, sir.

Reed: "I don't know any christians that would say he was morally obligated, you must be mixing with a bad crowd."

Really... and how many Christians do you know who stand up in church and proudly announce how rationally selfish they are?

You're a living contradiction, Reed: your first quote above smacks of altruism, the code that says we are morally obligated to selflessly save strangers before we selfishly protect those we value.

The problem with universal Christian love is this: loving everyone makes the love of someone close to you entirely meaningless. The moment you say, "I love all, but I love my wife more!" is the moment you begin identifying your hierarchy of values - which will come in handy when you have to make a call on who you save. You also seem to have a problem with scale: if the number of strangers is great enough you will, no matter how unhappily, sacrifice your wife. In which case I'd also hate to be your wife, sir.

Finally, regarding your driver story: all things being equal, if the accident was entirely unavoidable and it came down to saving himself by bumping the strangers' teetering car off the cliff, or avoiding them and heading over the cliff himself... I'd say he made the right call. If he was in control of his car enough to make the decision he still had an obligation to avoid hitting the vehicle in front. Christians will see this as an act of noble sacrifice; Objectivists will see it as an act of a man in control of his fate and adhering to the principle of non-force: a hero for his unfaltering acceptance of reality no matter how inconvenient it may be.

2009 AD: 20 % of the human population is infected with a deadly virus. Your beloved child is one of the infected. You are not.

You are a brilliant scientist and miraculously find the cure against the virus. The antidote however is far from ready. In fact the only existing sample is still in it's "pre-protoplasm-stage". This means it works BUT it's superconcentrated and needs to be refined & processed & whatnot in order for you and your team to produce the billion samples of antidote needed. This will take at least a few weeks - and will surely save at least a billion human lives.

The problem is - your child is dying within a few hours. So - do you give the only existing sample of antidote to your child and thereby doom the rest of the infected people?

(You know for a fact that you can't ever again produce that original sample of antidote. You also know that the chance of another scientist finding the cure is essentially nil.)

Scientific theories sometimes fail tests at extremes, considering "lifeboat" examples can be valid tests of our morals. And anyway, if everything always went well then morals wouldn't even be necessary.

Re the concentration camp questions - I would pick the first volunteer(s), draw straws, toss a coin or pick the one(s) that had lived the longest.

Glenn -
I've read a lot of your posts and I don't really believe you would commit (or even allow) genocide to save the life of someone you love. I hope you are feeling better today. (that's a friendly smiley, intended to magically destroy any bad vibes)

I've thought about the organ donor example I gave and decided it wasn't a fair parallel.
Causing any number of people to die to save any number of people is immoral (except in self defense or similar).

I think the original intended context is as follows...
The decision made is the life and death determining factor for one billion or a loved one.
Assumption: The billion are strangers.
Assumption: The cause is out of our control.

From my perspective saving the billion people is better than saving the one person, even though it would come at a huge cost to myself. Isn't this more objective than the opposing view?

Your supplementary hypotheticals are a mess – more floating abstractions… put them into a plausible context and I might answer them.
I was using those hypothetical questions to help me answer your question re life valuation, and said "All other things being equal" to eliminate contextual problems. I wasn't expecting you to try answering them.

Regarding Corporal Apiata: he wasn’t morally obligated to save his mate (as an altruist or a Christian would have you believe) – he did so because he valued his comrade enough to take the calculated risk.
I don't know any christians that would say he was morally obligated, you must be mixing with a bad crowd.
If objectivists approve altruistic acts that are done out of love (not obligation) then they are approving of the christian view that I know.

And as far as your driver goes, if he’d pushed the car over the cliff because he hadn’t allowed enough distance for an emergency stop it would have been his fault – end of story.
You obviously know more about this accident than I do. ( magic smiley)
I'm not even sure of the relative directions the cars/truck were traveling.

This absurd hypothetical was set up to make genocidal maniacs out of those who hold a definitive hierarchy of values. Your “joke” does not reflect this perception and I reject your attempt to put a smiley face on it now.

The question isn’t, “Would you murder 1 billion people to find the one compatible organ donor to save your child.” Without a proper context Pender’s hypothetical is a floating abstraction, but I attempted to answer it in good faith, regarding the principle that it is perfectly moral to put yourself and the ones you love before total strangers no matter what their numbers or how great their need.

Your supplementary hypotheticals are a mess – more floating abstractions… put them into a plausible context and I might answer them.

Reed: "If your child needed some transplant or they would die, is it ethical to take an essential organ from someone else to save your childs life?"

Yep, as long as you have the donor’s consent.

Regarding Corporal Apiata: he wasn’t morally obligated to save his mate (as an altruist or a Christian would have you believe) – he did so because he valued his comrade enough to take the calculated risk.

And as far as your driver goes, if he’d pushed the car over the cliff because he hadn’t allowed enough distance for an emergency stop it would have been his fault – end of story.

Did I forget the smiley

Reed: "I know you have already confirmed you would commit genocide to save your child..."

Stern reply to follow...

Why is it more virtuous (or noble as you say) to value someone else's life more than your own or someone you love, Reed?

Everybody dies. IMO The length of life and quality have value.
Which lives had more value -
... a life that shortened the lives of others or a shorter life that extended the lives of others?
... a life that oppressed others or a shorter life that freed others?
... an unhappy life or a shorter happy life?
All other things being equal I would say the shorter lives in these examples had more value.

If someone has the kind of love (not obligation) inside them that makes an action like "a life giving sacrifice" possible then, I believe, the life they had is better for it, even if it might be shorter.

You considered it a noble (KASS) act when the VC soldier carried his friend to safety while under heavy fire. Why do you view this differently? If the soldiers had died would it still have been a noble act?

If your child needed some transplant or they would die, is it ethical to take an essential organ from someone else to save your childs life?
It's the same situation but we are only assessing a one for one trade.
I know you have already confirmed you would commit genocide to save your child but is it really ethical to choose the death of millions to save someone you love?

Incidentally, the driver in the rear of an accident is always at fault: it wasn't so much a noble act as much as it was accepting his responsibility for driving too close to the tail of the vehicle in front.
From the story I heard he wasn't at fault. I never knew the guy and I don't know much detail of what happened, however, it is a good illustration for this discussion.

Landon nails it: "... there really is no right or wrong answer [and] you're showing great disrespect to the very concept of morality."

Done.

Because the only way you would actually be faced with a scenario like this would be in a (very, very, very, very, bad) science fiction story like I listed.

The closest real world alternative would be situations like what happened in concentration camps where a guard would approach a mother and ask "Which of your children should I kill" with the implicit fact that not giving an answer would mean both would die and offering to sacrifice yourself would mean all three of you would die. Or you could take it a step further, an SS guard asks a detainee "One of these bunkhouses is going to have everyone in it killed which one?"\

But the key factor is that that trying to focus on morality only in what Ayn Rand called "lifeboat situations" which are so extreme and so rare that there really is no right or wrong answer you're showing great disrespect to the very concept of morality.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Why is it more virtuous (or noble as you say) to value someone else's life more than your own or someone you love, Reed?

Incidentally, the driver in the rear of an accident is always at fault: it wasn't so much a noble act as much as it was accepting his responsibility for driving too close to the tail of the vehicle in front.

I would definitely prefer we had politicians that wouldn't sacrifice the masses to save their own family. So I won't be voting for anyone here.

With respect to it not being a real situation - A friend of my fathers had to choose between his own life and a family in another car. He would have had a real chance of survival if he had chosen to stay on the inside lane but one or both of the other cars involved would have gone over a cliff. He chose to drive off the road, an unsurvivable fall, saving the others. If we view this is a noble act (and I do) and teach our children the same view, then we are choosing the billion over our own child.

The child AND the one billion strangers. The more the merrier I say.

Seriously, Phil Coates is right. It's a nonsense scenario beloved of those whose motive is to try to negate ethics altogether.

... to select specific individuals.The question concerns the destruction of a geographical area/continent - Europe, Africa, etc.

I do however agree that it's more valuable to ponder & debate situations mostly pertaining to real life situations. Nonetheless, the notion that I could wipe out almost the entire human race and still be MORAL bugs me. And so I'd like to discuss it.

Landon Erp: Why can it be valid in both kind of situations?

Thanks for your thoughts so far those of you who's posted.

This question is akin to saying that morality only applies in situations where Lex Luthor says to Superman "Either you kill Lois Lane or I blow up Metropolis" as opposed to anything you'll ever encounter.

--Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

it possible to select the 1 billion individuals? ...or would it require the killing of everyone in a specific geographical area? (Europe, for example)

If I could get selective then I would be all for it...ridding the World of unnecessary kinds of people whom I do not like.

This is a fake situation and can never occur. Rand explained (I think it was in the "Ethics of Emergencies" essay) why it is a mistake to spend one's time debating these bizarre, made-up scenarios and why ethics is not based on them.

It is based, instead, on the real world.

I took this to mean you loved him/her - but of course one would have strong negative feelings toward a child who grew up to be a Ted Bundy. In such a case I would flick the switch myself for having completely screwed up as a parent.