equinox

Hi, Recently I have been thinking about the Objectivist ethics and trying to gain a better understanding. As part of this I have been thinking of all kinds of scenarios where different things would apply. Some of these scenarios I have come up with seem rather ridiculous just as a test to see if the universal application of Objectivist laws seem like they work or not. Please forgive me for this ridiculous example, but I am using it just as an extreme to test the universal application of Objectivist ethics. From what I understand, each man is supposed to hold the continuation of his own life as his highest value above all. Man is not to worship his whim, or in other words random emotional impulses in the process of his self interest and must regard self interest strictly as the continuation of his own life as his highest value. Ok, I know this example seems rather ridiculous, but bare with me please, I have already explained my reasons for using extreme examples. Ok, here is my question, would it be immoral to walk down a set of stairs without a helmet on if one has one readily available? There is always a potential danger in walking down a large set of stairs of one accidentally falling, typically speaking, wearing a helmet while walking down a set of stairs would greatly mitigate any risk one may take in endangering ones own life. Why wouldn't you wear a helmet while walking down a set of stairs? Is not wanting to not look cool or socially acceptable, or just being plain lazy to put on a helmet in the few seconds that it takes simply whim worship? Surely a large staircase is a much greater potential danger to ones life and safety than any potential dangers of not looking cool. Or even when nobody is watching, or at least nobody important who decides how much you get paid or any of your life conditions such as a boss, surely you would have no reason not to do it then. Wouldn't it be immoral not to wear a helmet for not walking down a set of stairs because failing to do so, and not wearing one would account as whim worship? Isn't this true since wearing the helmet would rationally put ones own life as ones own highest absolute value, while failing to wear one would be putting an emotional whim which has nothing to do with the continuation of ones own life as a higher value above safeguarding ones life? Don't think this is too extreme either, because there have been numerous times in my life I can remember in which I have tripped and almost fallen down a set of stairs, so it's not exactly an impossible proposition, I am not a very old man either, so I'm sure I'm not the only one. Overall if I had to put safety and my life first, I would say statistically speaking it's definitely safer wearing a helmet on a set of stairs than not wearing one. It seems to me that if I were to renounce all whim worship, and unconditionally put my life as my highest value, I should be wearing a helmet every time I walk a fairly large staircase where I could statistically speaking, potentially fall. Based on pure rationality and probabilities, wearing a helmet would be putting my life first, whereas not wearing a helmet would be putting a whim of "not wanting to look stupid" in front of people I probably don't even know first. I am not speaking of "its highly improbable". I am speaking of statistical absolutes, if you look at it in terms of statistical absolutes, by wearing a helmet you are putting your life first, by failing to wear one you are putting whim first. By definition of statistical objective absolutes, if I am understanding this right, if you did not wear a helmet, you would not be objectively putting your life as your highest value, and therefore acting immorally... no? Like I said, I know this seems very ridiculous but if the ethics of Objectivism are absolute and universal, they should be applied to every situation absolutely regardless of whim, this is the reason for me bringing up such a seemingly ridiculous example, but I believe a totally valid one. If this example would fall under the moral structures of Objectivism and be considered immoral, how could one fail to follow it? Wouldn't this be simply subjectively picking-and-choosing instances, which would negate the whole point of following objective morality in the first place? Please explain. Thank you.