Is this immoral?

[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.

[anthony]

Hi equinox: You are joking surely? As a rational egoist it's immoral to even contemplate walking

down stairs, with or without helmet. I advocate not getting out of bed, ever - but admittedly

I am somewhat of an extremist.

(You know how it goes, take that first risk, and it leads to addiction - before you

know it, you are driving a car, starting a business, falling in love...)

[Selene]

Stan:

Welcome to OL.

Where did you get this understanding 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.

Free will enters this. Choosing to pursue ones self interest necessitates risk at many levels.

Your example, essentially, can be reduced to absurd levels. Why would you even take a chance on ever ascending a stair. You would necessarily choose to live and work only on the ground. However, then again, you might get hit by a vehicle.

Hmmm, difficult choices.

Maybe, by wearing the helmet, it would through off your balance causing you to break your neck and die instantly.

Adam

Post Script: I believe you need to define Objectivist ethics and or give your source as to what you stated.

Ragnar took extreme risks to follow his concept of an ethical path. He happens to be my favorite character.

[studiodekadent]

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.

Okay, first I'm going to thank you for the meaty post!

Now, first point is on your intellectual method. You're trying to talk in terms of universal applications of Objectivist "laws." This is a Deontological/Kantian type method (Universalization tests, specifically).

You're also, by your own declaration, using extreme examples to prove your point. This is something you shouldn't do because Objectivist ethics is extremely situationally sensitive ("contextual application of the principles" in our terms).

Short answer is you're looking at Objectivism from a Rationalist perspective.

SECOND, you mischaracterize Objectivism.

From what I understand, each man is supposed to hold the continuation of his own life as his highest value above all.

This is incorrect. It isn't about continuation of one's own mere biological life. It is about building and sustaining a fulfilling life, it is about flourishing, it is about (to use Aristotle's term) Eudaimonia. It is about living on a level proper to one's nature and seeking one's own happiness.

As for your actual moral dilemma re falling down the stairs... no, it is not morally imperative to wear a bicycle helmet when going down stairs. Sure, if you're extremely prone to falling down stairs you might want to do this, and that would be reasonable. But...

1) Not everyone is equally prone to falling down stairs

2) Not all staircases pose the same level/s of danger

3) Plenty of other domestic household activities can be dangerous... should people have to wear chain-mail gloves before they chop vegetables?

Zero percent risk is an impossible goal, and trying to pursue it would involve a significant investment of time/money/childproofing one's entire life.. would it be worth the risk-reduction?

[syrakusos]

(PS - Go to the other topic, and edit out your post, keep the reply and post that here for him, and note there that it is a duplicate. A bit of work, but it will help.)

Equinox, your basic assumption is correct. Myself, I believe that in the future people will find it ridiculous that you could hit your head on an open cupboard door in your own kitchen. We accept a lot of pain and suffering because of religious ideas that this life is temporary and the Afterlife is perfect. To me, much of the modern household still seems medieval. If you look at the National Safety Council pages, you will see that you are not safe in your own home. Read this NSC pdf and search for the two instances of "bed." More dangerous than an airliner (including space travel).

Here in Texas, they just opened a stretch of toll road with an 85 mph limit. To me, that is an invitation to homicide and suicide - and I learned to fly an airplane, which I consider safe.

That brings up the other fact that we all evaluate risks for ourselves, so that most people think that driving is safe, though they fear getting on an airliner. In fact, driving your own car is seven times more dangerous than taking a jetliner. We accepted automobile deaths - high speed roads; cars without seat belts - because our society, our culture, largely accepts an anti-life philosophy.

As you stated the problem - the helmet is there; easy; available - I say use it. And keep your hand on the railing!

Short of that though, life entails risks. That's the price of action.

[Brant Gaede]

I suspect driving is much more then seven times as dangerous than flying. 7000 people died last year from flying in US commercial airliners?

--Brant

then there are the maimed and wounded

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

If a person has good co-ordination and balance and there is a handrail there is no overwhelming reason to wear head protection. On the other hand, if he is unsteady on his feet or the stairs are rickety or slippery he may be well advised to protect himself. One cannot make a blanket rule about stairway climbing or descent. It depends on the existing conditions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

Last time I checked, virtually every sporting goods store carries hockey gear, so there is an easy answer to this important dilemma you raise. I suggest you splurge on head-to-toe hockey gear before walking any up or down any flight of stairs. Forget the skates, however, and make sure to turn the hockey stick upside down.

Assuming you cannot afford this outlay, I suggest instead that you somehow strap together your copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and ride down the stairs atop your makeshift sleigh. Do wear a helmet here, and good luck.**

**If today were January 1, my New Year's Resolution would be to avoid hypothetical questions by anybody on OL with less than 200 posts under their belt. There seems to be something in the water with new posters of late...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(PS - Go to the other topic, and edit out your post, keep the reply and post that here for him, and note there that it is a duplicate. A bit of work, but it will help.)

I merged the two threads.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeez,

Another dude from Brea, California.

This is the third person from Brea, and it always deals with kookiness.

I wonder if it's the same person, I wonder.

This is a discussion forum, not a Neurotics Anonymous for Trolls meeting place.

I'll be watching.

Michael

[jts]

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.

Being a not completely able bodied person (I go around in a walker), to me this example is somewhat non-theoretical and somewhat non-ridiculous. I am keenly aware of the possible danger. I grab both bannisters and go slowly one step at a time. Taking the necessary precautions, the risk is zero.

[Selene]

When you break down his original "posts" on two (2) different threads with two different "layouts" essential positing the same, I will be kind, asinine example about walking on stairs, it appears to be a troll.

The inability to give a reference point, or, quote from Rand speaks volumes.

The "Brea factor" begins to push the coincidence limit in my mind.

Since we are not using our military air assets to protect our ambassadorial territory over seas, perhaps we can use them domestically and carpet bomb Brea...just a thought.

A...

[PDS]

When you break down his original "posts" on two (2) different threads with two different "layouts" essential positing the same, I will be kind, asinine example about walking on stairs, it appears to be a troll.

The inability to give a reference point, or, quote from Rand speaks volumes.

The "Brea factor" begins to push the coincidence limit in my mind.

Since we are not using our military air assets to protect our ambassadorial territory over seas, perhaps we can use them domestically and carpet bomb Brea...just a thought.

A...

You are starting to sound like "Red Baron Peikoff" back during his Bomb Iran! phase...

[Xray]

Why wouldn't you wear a helmet while walking down a set of stairs?

Check your premises. Nothing in Ayn Rand's writings suggests that Objectivism is focused on eliminating life's risks.

[PDS]

Why wouldn't you wear a helmet while walking down a set of stairs?

Check your premises. Nothing in Ayn Rand's writings suggests that Objectivism is focused on eliminating life's risks.

Also, I see nothing in the Ayn Rand Lexicon about the use of helmets in stairwells.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys are discussing this seriously and I think this dude is sitting back laughing his ass off at the stoopid peeple he roped in.

One more proof (from that perspective) that Objectivists and Rand-friendly people are dumb-asses and easy to trip up. So why not have fun with them? See how easy it is?

Just learn the jargon a bit, come up with some hair-brained situation that is so ridiculous it's painful, ask a serious-sounding question in a polite respectful tone, and watch the bugs wiggle around like ants trying to analyze and justify this shit.

Then laugh your ass off.

Maybe it's my paranoia acting up, but I've seen too much of this crap (veiled snark) to be benevolent about it without a reason to be.

And I don't have a reason to be right now.

Michael

[anthony]

Which brings up a common characteristic I've noticed among many o'ists - their candour, eagerness

to explain stuff, sincerity - and, I'm convinced - a certain innocent, naive quality, especially the younger ones.

That this makes them easy targets for ridicule, only endears me more to them. Others don't appreciate

that, and these cynics (oddly enough) tend to be lib-progs. Whaddaya know!

This geezer here was just too patently dishonest, but full marks for originality.

[Xray]

Also, I see nothing in the Ayn Rand Lexicon about the use of helmets in stairwells.

Or about wearing surgical maks and rubber gloves. Just think of all those potentialy life-threatening viruses and bacteria ...!

[caroljane]

Michael, note above. As you said yourself, ridicule is better than violence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, note above. As you said yourself, ridicule is better than violence.

Carol,

Alinsky 101 - Rule 5.

Michael

[caroljane]

Huh?

[PDS]

You guys are discussing this seriously and I think this dude is sitting back laughing his ass off at the stoopid peeple he roped in.

One more proof (from that perspective) that Objectivists and Rand-friendly people are dumb-asses and easy to trip up. So why not have fun with them? See how easy it is?

Just learn the jargon a bit, come up with some hair-brained situation that is so ridiculous it's painful, ask a serious-sounding question in a polite respectful tone, and watch the bugs wiggle around like ants trying to analyze and justify this shit.

Then laugh your ass off.

Maybe it's my paranoia acting up, but I've seen too much of this crap (veiled snark) to be benevolent about it without a reason to be.

And I don't have a reason to be right now.

Michael

What, my bound Rand volumes sleigh recommendation seemed too earnest? I'm losing my touch...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, note above. As you said yourself, ridicule is better than violence.

Alinsky 101 - Rule 5.

Huh?

Carol,

You might not be familiar with the book, but I'm sure you're familiar with the tactic. After all, primates learn mostly by imitation. (I don't mean that to be derogatory. It's just fact and it applies to me, too.)

The book: Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.

This is an instruction manual for "oppressed classes" to take power from those who have it.

Here's a quote:

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

I like that fourth rule. Rand, for instance, was particularly effective in using it against Progressives in power.

Michael