An Objectivist on a Life Boat

[SaveTheWheat]

If a tree falls in an empty forest, it still makes a sound, bitches. The electron is there whether you are looking at it or not. What goes up must come down. Time to tear down all the stupid shit made up by scientists who live within a fragile god complex.

[a46475]

How is eating the other guy irrational? The objective is to remain alive or relieve one's hunger, unless eating the other guy doesn't accomplish this objective I don't see how this would be irrational. If the hope is to drift unto land, eating something might just buy you enough time to still be alive when you drift unto land.That sounds rational to me.

[dsmelsergmailcom]

This is ridiculous. I can't stomach anymore. Your understanding of subjectivism is absurd. Is there something in the kool-aid at Objectivist meetings that prevents every one of you from grasping any argument that didn't get shat out by that dumb cunt? It's really breathtaking how perfunctory the thinking of people who claim to idolize reason really is once you push past their sophistry.

[SaveTheWheat]

@dsmelsergmailcom

What dumb cunt?

[dsmelsergmailcom]

@SaveTheWheat Ayn Dumb Cunt Rand.

[dsmelsergmailcom]

Wow. You just completely dodged the question. "Cannibalism is short sighted." That's a fun game. Require the opposition to modify the hypothetical over and over (in this case by saying that eating the other person will allow the eater to survive until help arrives) until you get to the case that you always knew they were interested in in the first goddamn place: the place where the rubber meets the road and a decision has to be made between taking the other person's life or giving up yours.

[dsmelsergmailcom]

Man survives only through collective effort. To stop the analysis at "man survives through rationality" is absurd. The most rational man in the world would live in a wild hell without the collective efforts of the rest of society. The Objectivist attempt to squat on the term rationality is nothing more than the attempt to beg the question of their own hideously immoral system of "morality" (basically anti-morality) by pretending that it has a rational basis beyond pure selfishness.

[neobudda1]

ayn is a whore and should be thrown overboard

[SaveTheWheat]

@neobudda1

Scared?

[MirageScience]

and the pragmatist?

[Tanfeliz]

Production does not equal rationality. Cannibalism is not necessarily irrational. Ayn Rand's books are similarly full of false equivalencies. In what way is it objective to refer to non-whites as "barefoot savages," as Rand did? And since "objective" implies epistemological consistency, why not even tip the hat to Descartes?

[FollowingAutumn]

The problem at 1:50 is stating the "purpose" of ethics is to establish (or discover) a code of behavior which will allow man to survive. Now if by "man" you mean "mankind" that is one thing, but I gather you mean "a man" that is "the self". If these two people are the last people on earth and they are both male, then the point of ethics for the survival of "mankind" is moot. I don't have the space here to expound upon the "ethics" of the survival of mankind if it's a man and woman on the boat

[sc0pl355]

If they eat the others they may live long enough to find other resources to take advantage of until they are rescued. Deciding to not consume available resources because you'll run out is silly. If that's how you think, then I'd love to be on a boat with you while holding the shovel and a frying pan.

It is more logical to die two months from now than it is to die two weeks from now. You can express your disgust at my actions from within my stomach while I live to tell the tale.

[xilix]

@sc0pl355 At no point did he say to not consume available resources because they will run out. The point of that statement went way over your head. I would explain why, but to be honest, if you landed here; there's no way I can carry you way the hell up there.

[sc0pl355]

@xilix "At no point did he say to not consume available resources because they will run out. "

Yes he did, jackass. Other people are resources to be consumed if there's no other food around and no hope of finding more food or being rescued anytime soon. He even said that cannibalism is irrational and shortsighted.

4:40

Perhaps all of his big words impress your feeble mind and you don't understand. Stop projecting your inferiorities onto others.

[prodprod]

I don't see how this scenario either fails to involve the making of a rational decision (that is, reducing a human being to the status of a "brute" or an "animal") or even involves the abandonment of values. Rather, it places people in a dire situation where one must *choose* -- albeit they must make a rather dire choice.

Two people. Both can choose to starve. One or the other can choose to sacrifice himself and be eaten. One or the other can choose to kill and eat the other.

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (2) All of the above consist of the application of reason to the particular values of the individuals involved.

Do I consider preserving my life to be more or less important than murdering another person?

Do I consider preserving my friend's life more important than my preserving my own?

Do we both consider preserving our lives more important than violating the taboo of cannibalism?

In any case, you're not eating people forever -- just long enough (hopefully) to be rescued.

[CelticKraut]

The heavier person can live off their own fat for longer. Water is the main need for both though.

[soccom8341576]

The reality is in a lot of emergencies, it is often better to stick together. The group makes everyone feel better, for better or for worse.

Resorting to murder is rare, because that would be betraying one's mind, and a false choice between choosing between my life and another's life, my mind or his right to live. People don't in general stop being man the moment they hit the lifeboat.

Even in a lifeboat production is a choice! End of Story!

[soccom8341576]

Any situation in which a man(have to have mind and life) must choose between sacrificing my mind and death is a double bind, a false choice.

It is rational to cannibalize but without murder. One cannot choose to sacrifice oneself for a person that's dead.

[iridescentsquids]

Why assume that one must be irrational to consider cannibalism? It seems to me that it is possible, when confronted with a high probability of starvation and the option of eating a human body (assuming that person is already dead) to rationally consider whether cannibalism might be the best option. Murder is different, although it might also be rational to make a gamble, drawing straws for example, so that there was at least a chance of your own survival when faced with certain death otherwise.

[OHT53]

Refer back to the days of sailing ships and long voyages starvation was common the policy was to draw straws and that under the circumstances was rational.

[shadowbunny21]

the moral thing is for both men to starve unless x or y die first and then eat the one that dies first

[mrcwalk]

hi paul,

would the question not be better rephrased to refer to the boat as an "apocalyptic boat"?

thanks for your response

[ScaryGuy255]

Also I almost forgot, killing the other person(s) early will increase any food supply and if there is only one other person it increases by half. However I'm not THAT evil and wouldn't mind waiting for rescue.

Still waiting too long could mean we're both weak from starvation so it would be harder to kill him in a struggle in such a state. Also he'll be less likely to expect it I think if there is no immediate reason.

[CelticKraut]

@ScaryGuy255 lol.

[ScaryGuy255]

I'd wait until the last possible moment to eat the other guy, because that suits my interests.

Besides I better be STARVING when I do, because the meat won't last long so I better be able to get my fill before it goes rancid.

Some people are not willing to kill to survive, which to them suits their own interests. Then they unfortunately become fodder for me, and chum for the fish.

[pukeoncops123]

You make a few assumptions in this video: 1. That man has free will 2. The nature of man is to be rational / If you are not making an attempt at rational thinking you are not human 3. To be non-rational is a choice 4. That it is not rational to resort to cannibalism if you are starving.

I thought that the highest virtue for objectivists was selfishness? Shouldn't killing and eating the other be the obvious choice? Why isn't it rational to try and live longer in hope of being saved?

[enotdetcelfer]

I absolutely love how you criticize the premises involved in the argument/scenario... Only people versed in the practice of debating themselves (ie applying logic, above preference, to the arguments at hand) exhibit this real critical thinking. Dissecting the faulty premise of a supposedly dismantling query is the best tool objectivists have against the trite retorts of the sophist and the simple, blind, contrarian.

[sybo59]

In the Fountainhead, Roark tells Gale that he would die to save him, but would never LIVE for him.

[BlandBoy]

There's a major flaw in the life boat scenario;

Your going to die of dehydration LONG before starvation becomes a problem.

Canalizing the other life boater isn't going to give either of them any higher chance of survival.

[ChristFavorsME]

Yeah, and a fat bastard won't stop a trolley.

It's a *thought experiment*, dumbass. So long as it clearly and successfully isolates the principal it's meant to ponder, it doesn't matter that *every* feature of the scenario be possible. Besides you're assuming there's no significant rainfall. I once read an account written by a soldier in who was just this kind of situation with three other soldiers after their ship was sunk by a kamakaze. They collected rainwater in a makeshift funnel.

[djkhaless]

[cont] So, as you can see, I never mentioned ethics once. But in the end, ANY person will eventually fall into the non-use of his rational faculties.

In the end, the objectivist kills his lifeboat partner in a fit of uncontrolled rage, by sticking to his very ways of rational and logical thinking to begin with.

So I ask you...what was the point?

[djkhaless]

[cont] The mind will continue to deteriorate as you stick to the rational mode of thought that 2 people are better than 1 and that water takes precedence over food. By the fifth or sixth day, free will slips away and one begins to loose grip on their rational faculties. Irrational action will likely soon follow, with a high probability of this ending with the result of someone's death.

[cont]

[djkhaless]

[cont] However, by the time you reach the point of the need for water becoming an emergency, you have gone 3-4 days without food and water. At this point, the mind is starting to undergo significant psychological changes. The changes will most certainly produce a chemical environment within the brain which starts to interfere with logical rational thinking. [cont]

[djkhaless]

[cont] It is premature, for knowledge that 2 are seen to have greater success than 1, and water is more essential to survival than food. Now with this, the logical and rational decision is to wait for a way to produce or procure water.

One could probably stand about 3-4 days waiting or searching for water before it starts to reach a level of immediate necessity [cont]

[djkhaless]

Your spewing much about morals and ethics and so on, without taking the first and most important thing into account. Water

Water is of much greater need, food is of no concern to start. One can only go about 7 days without water, however, one can go up to about 3 weeks without food. Now, that being said, we know, through experience, that 2 people can accomplish tasks that one alone cannot. This makes it premature to jump to killing someone for food [cont]

[emanonami]

Hey Paul,

Good job... I have to say though, that the face you pull at the very end of the clip is rather comical. Funny though it is, I must wonder if it doesn't ruin, at least partly, the preceding video a little?

Just something to think about

[twitch3111]

I find it funny that he spends 20 min on a moral problem that is made irrelevant by the fact the occupants will die of thirst long before hunger...... yet he keeps ranting about reality. Let me know when he finds it.

[insidetrip101]

I don't understand how CHOOSING to THINK about killing and eating the other guy is throwing away "rationality". It seems to me that THINKING about presupposed values in a time of need is EMBRACING rationality.

[riverlioness]

Technically selfishness is not required to be an objectivist. The value of selfishness was a separate Ayn Rand philosophy, which wasn't as well considered.

Objectivism is the pursuit of happiness without restricting the pursuit of happiness of others, which is a true value. An objectivist might find a way to make a net out of clothes, and would attempt to catch food from the ocean. Cannibalism would prevent the other person in the boat from assist in fishing.

[tookonehourtogetthis]

Well if i could live with myself, having eaten my fellow lifeboater. Then i would eat him in order to save my life. This fellow lifeboater must thus be my friend or have my respect in order to be saved from my hunger. I would rather starve than eating my wife for instance. But this is my reason and principles talking. My hunger would probably drive me to eating pretty much anybody :P.

[overmanhasreturned]

Get this. Ideology is primary. Eat the Objectivist because you won't be safe until you do. Projecting your "point blank thinking" is a problem. You are projecting.

I can't find a good articulate explanation of objectivism. No explanations stand up to Marxism.

There is a bigger picture with Marxism than you are explaining.

[Jenawahrheit]

Human reason will be eclipsed by the advent of biological imperatives of thirst, hunger and survival instinct. The abandonment of rationality (the moment of highest necessity) will not be by choice. R-complex will rule at the point of utmost necessity. No individuals in such dire circumstance should be "blamed".

[thegreatestbak]

...and using monty python music makes it even worse. Monty Python is antithesis of trashcan objectivist blabbering.

[thegreatestbak]

garbage

[globbo100]

Thank you for that video. It answered many questions that I had.

[kokopelli314]

First of all, there is no, "manX and manY".

There is a collective choice between taking another's life, offering one's own, or none of the above.

Very simple problem. Order the choices in terms of the group ethics.

1) None of the above

2) Offering one's own life

3) Taking another's life

To rephrase:

When is it morally justifiable to consume ones own arm to fend off starvation?

Atomization creates unnecessary dualities. Objectivism limits our view.

[zenshinify]

Is that your subjective opinion, or intrinsic fact?

[Learkins]

Great, great video. Well said and correct.

Thanks

[knacryan]

Is it okay to eat the other guy after you kill him defending yourself from his attempt to eat you?

[barifkin31]

Objectivism is subjective, by nature. It asserts that man's highest value is his own life and his purpose is his happiness. What?! How in the hell are these 'objective' truths. The entire branch of thought is a fabrication of a single mind, and subjective. Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, she was a novelist. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what McDonald's is to cuisine. Get out here with this pseudo-philosophy. Read real philosopher's works.

[barifkin31]

He says, "what if an intrinsicist says no, that's fine. BUT what if they say yes. it's not ok." EXACTLY!! That's what most (if not all) intrinsicists believe. That it would not be ok. He uses the word intrinsic when he really means objective. He doesn't use objective because that's a term Ayn Rand created to fit her philosophy but really has nothing to do with objective thinking. However, 'Objectivism' is no more objective than 'utilitarianism' or 'racism'.

[centerrightpunk]

hell yea i'll eat you. especially if you're looking tasty.

[wetwingnut]

Excellent argument.

I think AR would be pleased with your analysis.

Thank you for sharing it.

[drew335533]

I'm not sure if I agree with you here to a certain extent. I'm pretty subjectivist in my morality, and I don't think that this means in my terms at least that no morality exists and isn't based off reality. I'm just saying that everyone takes different opinions from reality and then turns those into their moral system. I suppose you could make the argument that although facts exist, there are still different ways to determine those facts.

[Lhaywood313]

objectivism, lol. pseudo-philosophy.

[subdue420]

ad hominem, lol. logical fallacy.

[El3ctricPenguin]

So wait... what would an objectivist do in that scenario?

[Ataensic]

Google Ayn Rand Lexicon: Emergencies.

[sapidpersona]

According to the sunlight, an apparent day had passed away in the making of this great video. This is a day well spent if there ever has been.

[TheMikeBuck]

I can't believe you are lowering real philosophy down to the level of Ayn Rat.

[Breakyerself]

It's all dogma.

[kutthroat84]

the true answer is that... who ever died first is the one who gets to be the diner..an eight year old child could figure this situation out....all this other rhetoric is rendered garbage...

[kutthroat84]

survival is not always rational..hence rationality is not a necessity for survival. in situations like this it is in your best interest to preserve your life.according to randist morality..anything less would be self sacrifice..you wish to deem it unhuman is just moronic..it is not only logical and rational but also natural..and if any randist was in this situation they would fully throw out there moral conviction or try to justify this action,..since in fact most randist lack self control

[ezzz42]

Wonderful video, and some interesting points raised. For instance, Rand asserted that it is not immoral for a man who loves his wife to risk his own well-being to save her, recognizing the potential pain of her absence. There are many solutions to the lifeboat scenario, and as this video asserts, cannibalism is NOT an actual solution. XOmniverse is being subjectivistic by picking and choosing scenarios in which ethics apply. Ethics apply as long as your mind is capable of applying them.

[redwoodforesttwo]

Very good video. I neither agree with the objetivist nor the intrinsical view. I guess I would call my view the altruistic view in difficult situations like the life boat scenario. I would argue in a rational way. I would consider the smaller versus bigger person decision. I would give myself to the other person if the other person is smaller, which is most likely the case. But, if I am in a situation in which my baby is involved I would always choose my baby over anyone else. Mother instinct.

[redwoodforesttwo]

We are animals. But within the range of being an animal we have the responsibility to think rationally, because we have the ability to think rationally. I just made a video about this responsibility in my response to Mathfails who talks about science versus belief. We humans have the responsibility to take care of this planet, because we have the tools to do that. I believe that all humans can help. Our situation today does resemble that of the life boat. Rationality is our life saver.

[caltrop69]

Ethics don't apply in fight or flight situations.

People tend to act according to instinct, at that point.

[TheObnubilators]

Was that a face of indignation there at the end? :)

[DavidsIllustrations]

OH COME ON

at the very basis objectivism is about preserving INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, at its core ayn rand's objectivism is about preventing physical coercion and violence!

Just how is one person able to eat another? eating someone alive is an act of violence, eating them dead requires someone to die, killing would be an act of violence, or finally one allowing the other to eat them by sacrificing there life to them which is the key evil objectivism adresses.

there is no argument in this

[Ataensic]

i.e. He can confront the reality of his situation and act to sustain himself, that which he values, or he can paralyze himself and die.

[caltrop69]

Here's a key point: A person CAN rationally value another person over themselves without being altruistic or suicidal.

[dwernsing]

Good point.

[Ataensic]

Just as a man who defends himself from another is not 'murdering' him, a man who preserves himself by the only means available is not 'murdering' that which is his only chance at survival.

He is acting in his rational self interest; he is doing that which is right, and which is good according to his values and the context of the options available to him.

[Ataensic]

When the choice demanded by a certain situation is limited to preserving yourself or the life of another, the rational man chooses that which he values according to his standard of value, his life.

If he chooses to kill and eat the other person he is doing so out of self preservation, and because he has determined that his survival is of more value to him than the life of his life-boat-mate.

[caltrop69]

Objectivism allows for the desire to preserve the lives of some, over your own...Provided it isn't arbitrary. You GENUINELY have to value the lives of those you would die for...Children, Spouses, Brothers/Sisters, Etc...

Strangers don't count, of course, because you can't rationally value the life of a stranger over yours.

[Ataensic]

I'm only a couple of weeks into objectivist philosophy, but I'll give it a go. You seem to be suffering from an intrincisist mindset about killing other people, that it is always wrong. However, we know there are certain circumstances in which it is justifiable: self defense and self preservation. The only difference between the two is that in the first your life is threatened by another entity, and in the second, by circumstance.

[AhYaOk]

so what?

[Scrampster]

boy... you have a lot of books.. you must be really smart. :P How exactly do you suppose that putting 2 rational entities in a boat and removing their means of production eliminates their rational faculty? It's still there. Do you also stick your head in the sand to eliminate your idiocy? Has it worked yet? No... I guess not.

[pouyan242]

Ayn Rand was a stupid cunt

[jtroitsky]

Makes sense to me... One thing is missing though... To make things completely clear there is a need to say not just what rational would not do... but also what will he do in the lifeboat situation!

[runningfrog43]

Objectivism - NO MAN MAY INSTIGATE THE USE OF FORCE.

To do so is to wish for destruction, to wish for destruction is to base your desire out of the premise of death, not the premise of life. Ethics only apply if you choose to live. Instigating force is to discard morality -- the very thing keeping you alive. No rational man would kill another, unless the other instigates force. This remains absolute, lifeboat or no.

[spctommyboy]

...beautiful...

[wilicyote]

Well done Paul.

I should also like to point out that the obvious rational answer is that one merely has to wait until starvation claims one of the lives. This ensures that the "meat" will be be preserved till the last possible moment. It requires no murder, and rewards the man most successful at conserving his remaining energy, or life. It is, in fact what has happened, in one form or another in several lifeboat incidents on record. The soccer team stranded in the Andes, as an example.

[Scrampster]

good point.

[hoomelemele]

very good, but some dimes and cups would have helped:)

[justinwlaurab]

Wow! Loved it! Very interesting and compelling.

[nikkyo34]

Was Ayn decision to choose Peikoff as the heir of the objectivism movement rational or irrational after finding out that her close associate of 18 years had an affair?

[freezzertime]

Paul I need you to help me out here there is a nut that claims: if objectavism says this... Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of mans feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reality exists independent from consciousness. ill repeat the last part REALITY EXISTS INDEPENDENT FROM CONSCIOUSNESS.

XxARCxX Carusillo: then that is clearly wrong when tested in the world of quantum physics

[advancedatheist]

How about uctting through the blather to study what real people in lifeboat situations have done. For example, consider an extreme case: Ernest Shackleton's ill-fated voyage to Antarctica in the ship Endurance.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Here is what I believe:

Ethics is based on the truth of a situation.

Truth is independent of perspective and presumed to be related.

Truth is independent of the changing conditions that a possibly imaginary 'time' creates. (Cause and effect can be calculated with enough information from any time to any time in the future.)

Therefore: ethics is dependent on present and future truths. Things like whether the lifeboater will ever be saved? and is life 'good'? why? 'neg-entropy'?

peace,

~FreiKampf

[ForABetterTomorrow]

Your argument is correct when dealing with another rational person on the same lifeboat. So one has to establish by a discussion where the other person stands philosophically.

If the other person does not want to discuss the situation, shows dishonesty and/or an irrational philosophy I would see this as a threat against my life because in such a situation this is equal to saying "I will kill you."

[kurd55]

Heh, heh. What does the future, past, or present have to do with being rational? Time has no function in rationality. First, you have to prove that point. And of course you cant. The editing was intended to somehow tie together this hodgepodge? Some people will believe in anything. Ayn Rand---the L. Ron Hubbard of capitalism.

[BeUnbound]

Here's an example of what a rational mind would do in a "life-boat" scenario:

_The Bluejacket's Manual_ of the U.S. Navy has it that you can make a life-preserver by taking off your pants in the water, tying up the legs, blowing air into the waist, tying up the waist, and holding on for dear life. Sailor pants are especially suited for this, with their canvas material, flared legs and laced-up waists.

This would keep you afloat until you can find flotsam to make into a raft.

[ediblepet]

Hypothetical arguments are valuable rational tools for abstracting things out. Why do you criticize them? It strikes me as anti-intellectual, and you should welcome the opportunity to test your beliefs against any situation.

[PaulMcKeever]

Um...isn't that what I did?

[ediblepet]

You did address the issue, but only after dismissing the concept of the hypothetical argument as being too determined to create a specific scenario. That is indeed their entire purpose: to test the completeness of an ethical idea by examining certain extremes.

[xilix]

@ediblepet If you want to start a sound argument, you can't start with an absurd scenario.

[Sam26100]

Good explanation.

I agree, I'd rather ride out the situation than cease to become a human being.

[ChristFavorsME]

@PaulMcKeever  I disapprove of your hair.

[Zerofire18]

Paul I had reached this same conclusion, but could never hope to have expressed it so eloquently. I also believe that ethics do apply to these scenarios. I think it is a bs question because the lifeboat scenario is a construct with so many conditions, a fantasy, like you said about man not being able to produce value. Man can always strive to make the best of the situation, find a way, struggle to survive and not resort to becoming a mindless brute. Thank you.

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome. My only regret is failing to mention that, whereas a person can live for 3 weeks without food, he can live for only 3 days without fresh water. So, to make lifeboat scenarios plausible in the first place, one would probably have to be stranded in the middle of Lake Superior.

[BeUnbound]

Yet another example of rational thought in action in a "life-boat" scenario: Fresh water can be derived from dew or frost or glaciers (since salt settles out of the water as it freezes) and/or from distillation of sea water via a heating source, such as a Sterno heater or a solar still made from clear or black plastic. See any good survival manual for distilling details that can't fit here.

[GamblerJustice]

Thanks for making this video!

[zardozcs]

Thanks Paul, very good explanation cleared a few things up for me here. The only case where I can recall Ms Rand saying ethics doesn't apply is when you're staring down the barrel of a gun. It's the hypothetical case where you are at gunpoint and are ordered to choose who will die: your wife or your child.

[jwoodswce]

Two famous separate points of evidence supporting this video and the absurdity of the "life boat" style life-is-not-possible question: Shackleton and Bligh.

[PaulMcKeever]

Yes, two remarkable wills to live in conditions of near starvation, and all men arrive safely (save one killed while trying to retrieve food on land).

[PaulMcKeever]

When could such be the case?

[grantsinmypants2]

Never. But one could be sure that if he killed and ate the other guy he'd have that much more time available to him for the possibility of salvation.

Is it worth it? Again, that depends upon a lot of other factors.

But assuming that this man meant next to nothing to you, and that you had a fulfilling life waiting for you, I can't see how it would be immoral to at least take the chance. And if it works, I don't see why it would induce guilt.

[PaulMcKeever]

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the emotional impact of having both murdered and eaten someone. I think it would make happiness, thereafter, almost impossible for a rational individual. And, if so, the act itself could not be rational.

[grantsinmypants2]

I still don't see why a man would feel guilt for having killed someone who, assuming he didn't kill and eat me, would die anyways. "Guilt" implies choice. Yes, I have a choice as to *how* this other man will die, but not a choice as to *if*

But then again, I can't think of any real world context in which this would happen. The decision to prolong one's life for a period by murder and canibalism is as arbitrary as the decision not to. When are you going to be save? In 5 minutes? 5 years?

[thatguyublocked]

I think it isn't justifiable, it's normal to feel guilty but it's understandable and forgivable given the shitty situation.

[PaulMcKeever]

If X were rescued after cannibalizing ones boat-mate, would you - assuming it was demonstrably true that X murdered his boat mate - charge and convict X? I would, without question.

[thatguyublocked]

I wouldn't. But I would still say the person would have done something wrong, only that it's a forgivable wrong...given the situation. It's really pretty simple.

[PaulMcKeever]

If you do not have a choice as to "if", then what is true for him (THAT he is going to die) is also true for you (THAT you are going to die). IF it is true THAT he and you are going to die, what moral justification would their be for murdering him and eating him? If you DON'T know THAT he will die, how can you justify choosing HOW he will die?

[grantsinmypants2]

What I meant was that if I was sure that he (and I) would die if one of us didn't kill and eat the other, then I don't see how breaking that surity (giving myself a chance to live) through killing him would make me feel guilty. He was going to die either way - regardless of what I did or did not do.

But, as I said, I don't see how anyone could be sure that they weren't going to be rescused in time w/o cannibalism, but sure that they would be w/ it

Maybe that's not relevant. I'm not sure

[dakshinamurti]

...on y it's not rational to kill the other one, if you do it, considering the possibility of being saved. I can follow the idea that preserving or pursuing your life means a LIFE AS A MAN, that is, as a RATIONAL MAN. what's not clear is why it's not rational to act consciously in the only way you calculate to preserve your life, rational or not. In fact one could even say that after u make a choice to live, you have no more choice in this situation. only one would be to survive. It's just hard!

[PaulMcKeever]

Imagine that you're in NYC with plenty of cash and everything's fine. Imagine that you decide temporarily to be irrational - to be NOT man - and to murder and eat someone. Have you served your highest purpose? Have you pursued happiness, or have you made happiness almost impossible for the rest of your life?

[dakshinamurti]

I need clarification. The video states it is wrong for an objectivist to choose to comit canibalism, but you don't really say why. We know that, as objectivists, we should pursue our own preservation, as our life is out highest value... Do you mean something like... To preserve our life QUA MAN, to preserve our rational nature, so it means nothing to survive if you have to commit an irrational act to do it. Is that where you're coming from? I still would like clarification on y

[MisfitDoctor]

now are you going on the "man's life is his highest value" rule?

or the "a man may not impede on the life on another man's?"

[PaulMcKeever]

The first is a matter of ethics, the second, a matter of politics. I was dealing with ethics, which logically implies the politics.

[Beethovens7th]

Paul, just curious, if someone is being tortured to death, would you advocate the Braveheart approach? FRREEEEDOOMMM!!! Great movie.

Anyway, Peikoff talked about a similar situation in his latest Q&A, I recommend you listen to it. I found his answer somewhat unsatisfactory, however, as brilliant as he usually is. Someone asked him, "what is there to stop a dying man from doing something otherwise immoral while he waits to die, i.e., killing someone else?" His answer was that when all a....

[Beethovens7th]

....man has left to do is wait and die, ethics ends. He said, "if all this is possible to you is a drawn-out death, you cannot derive principles of ethics." He went on to say that a man who had lived morally the rest of his life would have those morals automatized and wouldn't become a nihilist just because he was about to die.

[PaulMcKeever]

I heard the Peikoff Q&A and, given the context, I wasn't unsatisfied with his answer. He wasn't really talking about a life boat scenario, in that the subject in the question he answered is dying no matter what he does or does not do.

[Beethovens7th]

Yeah ya know when I listened to it again and thought about it some more I wasn't unsatisfied anymore. The first time I heard it it almost seemed like he was giving credence to the idea that on your deathbed anything goes. Listening to it again, however, I realized that he wasn't doing that and his answer made more sense to me.

[lukeev]

That was really quite superb. Great video, I'm a total philosophy layperson.

[Sarrisan98]

What's with all the talk about lifeboat scenarios lately anyway? To what purpose can you ever really arrive?

You can project all you want in your arbitrary, controlled situations, but reality doesn't work like that. There will always be some factor that allows you to make some judgment or other, often without knowledge of whether it is moral or not until afterward, with hindsight.

[lukeev]

It's useful to sometimes push a theory or idea to its very limits, to test its integrity or validity in extreme, if unlikely, circumstances.

[Sarrisan98]

My answer to these questions is always the same.

I either refuse to answer, if it is clearly just a thinly veiled attack meant to force someone into a lose-lose situation, or I respond "It's up the persons involved to decide what is or is not ethical at the moment."

When you more or less toss rational thinking out the window, all that is left is going with your 'gut feeling,' or taking the best action you possibly can in an impossible situation.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

When you refer to free will, are you talking about the libertarian version of free will? Do you have any videos on your view of free will and choice?

[PaulMcKeever]

No video on free will yet. For the time being, consider me to mean that "man has free will" equals "man chooses from among alternatives".

[neutrinoide]

Whoa, first time I see an objectivist who impress me with depth. Good job.

[legendre007]

Mr. McKeever, hav U heard of environmentalist Garrett Hardin's horrible Malthusian article "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor"? It's online & easy to google. Hardin said that bcuz of "resource depletion," ALL of human life is a lifeboat emergency.

Hardin hence said that poor foreign refugees shouldn't be let in the U.S.; it's good that they die, since that will prevent "overpopulation." Hardin actually got away with saying that. Just terrible. :-(

[PaulMcKeever]

I hadn't heard of him or his article. Maybe I'll have a look.

[legendre007]

"I hadn't heard of him or his article. Maybe I'll have a look."

Hardin's article is 1 of the most offensive things I ever read. And since I live in Hawaii, I was bothered by how he said that every1 in Hawaii agreed with his nauseating Malthusian statist views.

People try to smear Rand as "a social Darwinist who wanted the poor to die." Hardin actually DID say the poor should just die. Yet he gets praised as a wonderful humanitarian just because he was an environmentalist. Incredible.

[legendre007]

1. U don't have to be religious to be an ethical intrinsicist. Many secularists are ethical intrinsicists. The secular intrinsicist says "Doing X is immoral because it's immoral, & that's that."

If U ask him WHY it's immoral, he says, "Because it's objectively immoral, & that's that!" In other words, he doesn't give a real "why."

[legendre007]

2. Kant was the quintessential ethical intrinsicst. He said that if it's immoral to lie to an honest person, then it's equally immoral to tell a lie to anybody for any reason under any circumstance; period.

Kant even went as far as saying it's evil to lie a murderer for the purpose of stopping him from murdering. That is from Kant's essay online (which is easy to google) titled "On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives."

[dakshinamurti]

That example is very good. I wonder if Paul can tell us what he thinks of this (I'm sorry if you have already). Is lying to a murderer to prevent him from killing you moral, immoral, ethics does not apply, and why. I think that is a question everybody should seek to be able to answer.

[PaulMcKeever]

I don't think I said one has to be religious, and I agree with you.

[melnick1985]

I love this man, he is brilliant.

[fortunatus]

So 'do unto others as you would have them would do onto you' does work in in Objectivism?

[PaulMcKeever]

Do unto others is simply a call not to be a hypocrite. It does not specify what one should expect others to do unto oneself, for example. If applied to concretes, absent abstractions, it arguably would be a call for intrinsicism. It might be interpreted consistently with Objectivism, but it is not an essential argument in Objectivism.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I don't see what's wrong with cannibalism. I mean killing the other person is wrong but if they are already dead then what's wrong with simply eating something?

[PaulMcKeever]

I think that's different. A dead body is not a man: "Meat's back on the menu, boys!"

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I guess it would depend on how we're defining cannibalism.

[brainpolice2]

It seems to me that, technically if the person is already dead, cannibalism cannot be said to be "unethical". Dead people aren't moral agents. It's cannibalism in the context of someone who's still alive that presents an issue.

[legendre007]

OK, thanks to this discussion, I am putting in my will that nobody -- not even my heirs -- may eat my flesh. I don't know if I should be buried or cremated, or have my organs donated, but no eating, please.

[PaulMcKeever]

Not even a nibble? ;-)

[legendre007]

Well, I do admit to being a rather tasty morsel, but . . . uh, no.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

That's odd, I don't see why that's more disturbing than being cremated.

[brainpolice2]

*homesteads your corpse* :)

[qtronman]

My favourite Canadian YouTuber is back!

[grantsinmypants2]

altruist

[brainpolice2]

While I am generally argueing against lifeboat scenarios, I have a question. Are there not scenarios, no matter how rare, in which production truly is not an option? And if so, can one truly dismiss the scenario out of hand without providing an answer? I don't think one can simply dismiss it out of hand as if it's not going to occur, and it can still be in the context of rational human beings. Or are such scenarios truly outside of the realm of ethics?

[PaulMcKeever]

Most certainly there are scenarios in which production is not an option. My point, in this video, is that such scenarios cannot be dismissed out of hand, and that they are not outside the realm of ethics.

[brainpolice2]

It seems to me that, at least in the case of the scenarios I'm thinking of (particularly a scenario in which others may die as a result of your inaction and if you actively intervene you will violate an ethical principle), the only ethical solution is to do nothing. The scenario cannot be dismissed out of hand, but neither can one suggest any real positive action without violating ethics. So in such a case inaction seems like the ethical thing to do.

[PaulMcKeever]

There are certainly cases in which rational action cannot assist ones own survival. I would not go so far as to suggest that inaction is "the" ethical thing to do. It might be. But if, for example, you have good reason to believe that, by paddling westward, you will find land, it would (barring better courses of action) be the right thing to do.

[PoprocksCk]

What if you only have good reason to believe that you will find land by paddling westward, but you will certainly die of starvation if you do not eat something at some point in your journey? Killing and eating the other human being will have extremely negative effects on the survivor in the long term, but he will still be the survivor, and is having his life not more valuable than *not* having his life?

[PaulMcKeever]

My answer to your question is no.

[dabruin2]

Look what the sea drug in...

Welcome back, Grizzly McKeever!

[PaulMcKeever]

It was a lake, actually!