A moral obligation to help others

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A moral obligation to help others

To help or not to help. That is the question...

I was sent an email telling me about the following post on Noodlefood. I was very interested, to say the least. Here is how it starts:

The Obligation to Render Assistance

By Diana Hsieh

Right around the time of the CU Boulder "Think!" debate on Ayn Rand's ethics between Onkar Ghate and Mike Huemer, I listened to a very interesting discussion of the obligation to offer minimal aid to a person in distress in one of Leonard Peikoff's podcasts.

Kevin McAllister -- of the blog Logical Disconnect -- was kind enough to transcribe the question and answer for me. Here it is:

Episode 41: 10:25 - 11:37

Q: Am I morally obligated to call for help if I see someone in a car accident or experiencing a heart attack?

This is obviously from someone who does not know what the Objectivist view of selfishness is. Absolutely yes, you are morally obligated. If you have chosen to live in a society of human beings and your mode of survival depends on your trade with them then you have to value human life so far as it's not guilty or criminal to your knowledge. In that case if you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved then only a psychopath would turn away from such cases. And that would mean besides all the psychological things a direct contradiction of the value of human life. You can't value your life and decide to live with others of your species and say, "They're nothing to me, I don't care if they live or die." That's self-contradiction.

So, according to Peikoff, the issue is not whether there is a moral obligation to help other people, but when and how much.

Well, as regards the moral issue, I am in full agreement with him. Staying in a society is a matter of volition, i.e., a matter of ethics. (Being born into it is not, but that is another issue.) Preserving the health of that society comes with a price. It is a very selfish thing to do.

Where I would probably disagree with Peikoff is on the issue of how species requirements (the ones handed down by nature) translate into rights, although I am not aware of his specific views on this.

I also think Peikoff and I agree about the lack of mental health of a person who would not—on principle—render non-self-sacrificial aid to another person in an emergency.

I have been in several controversies on Objectivist forums because of my stance on this, but I have never been able, in good conscious, to condone the depraved indifference I saw being held up as a pillar of social organization (a "right"), nor was I comfortable with the position of those who claimed that such depraved indifference was evil, but nobody could do anything about it other than shun the evil person.

I held then, and I still hold, that a person who insists on the right to depraved indifference within a society should be deprived of the right to live in that society, especially one of abundance created by people living according to anything but depraved indifference. Call it a trade. Call it not wanting to foster mental illness (Peikoff called such people "psychopaths"). Call it protecting young people from mental contamination through observing such evil behavior sanctioned. Call it anything along these lines, and call me evil for thinking like this.

I don't care. I refuse to call this a "right."

It isn't.

I have observed that many really mean people are attracted to Objectivism because it sanctions selfishness as the good—and they interpret selfishness as always receiving and never giving. I have been getting away from those people for quite some time as a personal choice. Still, I read. I observe. I see evidence of these people in the Objectivist subculture every day. So it was quite refreshing to see Peikoff, the guru in chief worshipped by some of these mean people, to say quite the contrary to what they preach.

In fact, I was a bit amused at the comments in that Noodlefood post. The level of discomfort and insecurity is very noticeable. Some people there are openly affronted by Peikoff's views as this trashes their intellectual con game of using the Objectivist philosophy as a moral sanction for their own personal nastiness. Others did some mighty pretzel-logic, but the general tone showed that their hearts were not in it.

Even with respect to Ms. Hsieh, she was not her old confident self. I don't recall her ever using the phrase "I think" so many times in a post. I have to give her credit for facing this issue head on, however. Given her hard-line and mean stance on so many things, that took courage.

(Or maybe she is simply following her new leader—whatever it takes—and being a good soldier, even though the task is somewhat repugnant. I don't believe this is her main motivation in this case, though. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt.)

Anyway, good on Peikoff. It's time to stop the nastiness crap in the Objectivist world.

Michael

(NOTE FOR THE THIN-SKINNED: Not all people who sanction depraved indifference as a right under Objectivism are mean. I do not mean to imply that. It is certainly possible to oversimplify this issue and still be a good person at heart. I do believe, however, that they are 100% wrong.)

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

We've been discussing this over at Dan Barnes' blog:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.c...ntological.html

-Neil Parille

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

We've been discussing this over at Dan Barnes' blog:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.c...ntological.html

-Neil Parille

The correct answer is: helping others is permitted but not required.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I held then, and I still hold, that a person who insists on the right to depraved indifference within a society should be deprived of the right to live in that society, especially one of abundance created by people living according to anything but depraved indifference. Call it a trade. Call it not wanting to foster mental illness (Peikoff called such people "psychopaths"). Call it protecting young people from mental contamination through observing such evil behavior sanctioned. Call it anything along these lines, and call me evil for thinking like this.

I don't care. I refuse to call this a "right."

It isn't.

I have observed that many really mean people are attracted to Objectivism because it sanctions selfishness as the good—and they interpret selfishness as always receiving and never giving. I have been getting away from those people for quite some time as a personal choice. Still, I read. I observe. I see evidence of these people in the Objectivist subculture every day. So it was quite refreshing to see Peikoff, the guru in chief worshipped by some of these mean people, to say quite the contrary to what they preach.

Michael,

Deprived? By whom and how?

This is a variant of you choose to live in society so you chose to pay your taxes and let your sons be drafted into national service. Society has a hold on you.

We need mean and nasty people so we can compare ourselves favorably to them and know not to be as they are. We first meet them in grade school, if not even sooner. Many kids are mean and nasty. Girls can be worse than boys. Sheer viciousness in high school. This is because public schools are little prisons and in prisons force rules and you have little choice about whom to associate with. Depraved indifference is more visited on people by their societies than mere people on people. The really bad guys need the state's guns. Are they the ones to do the depriving? Sure, if rights' violations are concerned. No, if they are the rights' violators.

--Brant

nice guy--don't deprive

[Christopher]

Interesting post Michael, interesting link Neil.

Maybe we can simplify this a bit to the following: the golden rule must be observed in all value-related behavior, otherwise the practice of any value demonstrates situational ethics. My favorite personal example I created was "how would the Dalai Lama react to someone who attacked him?"

If the DL didn't protect himself, he would be acting against the value of life; if the DL used force on the attacker, he would be acting against the value of life. My conclusion: learn Aikido, a way to minimize hurt while preventing the attack. Of course, second to this is the realization that the attacker's values by example offer less regard to the value of life than one's own values, so protection of oneself is more supportive to the value of life (which resides in the victim) than denying the self. The way I'm doing it here - Objectivist ethics stands on values, values reside in autonomy, so protecting autonomy and value-mechanisms (e.g. one's life) protect the values upon which Objectivist ethics exist. However, this is still not "the bad kind of selfishness." Instead through the logic here, seemingly selfish-oriented behavior (to protect one's life) remains consistent with the golden rule that all value-behavior must be depersonalized by definition if it is not to be situational.

Did this actually add any simplicity?

Chris

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Deprived? By whom and how?

Brant,

Law enforcement.

In the name of the injured party.

I don't have any other details. Exile. Banishment. Maybe prison. Fines.

I haven't thought about it that much yet. Anyway, it would depend on the gravity of the damage and the facility of aid.

I guess as a general rule of thumb, I prefer banishment from citizenship.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Deprived? By whom and how?

Brant,

Law enforcement.

In the name of the injured party.

I don't have any other details. Exile. Banishment. Maybe prison. Fines.

I haven't thought about it that much yet. Anyway, it would depend on the gravity of the damage and the facility of aid.

I guess as a general rule of thumb, I prefer banishment from citizenship.

Michael

Now just a minute. You've segued from the moral to the political. You can't enforce the moral with the political unless there are rights' violations. How do you do this moral thing so postulated absence rights' violation(s) without rights' violations? Look at it these ways: I am a nasty person. The tribe casts me out? I am a nasty person. The police arrest me? I am a nasty person. Somebody shoots me down? Just what about my nasty = rights' violations?

Now, maybe I'm not being fair to you. Let's say a crime is being committed right in front of you and you do nothing to stop it even though you could at no cost to yourself. Kitty Genovese. It can be posited that you were a derivative accomplice and subject to criminal prosecution. Similarly, if you know of a crime--a witness--and do not tell or testify you might also be a derivative accomplice. These things are, of course, hard to prove.

--Brant

Edited April 13, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I made the following an edit to my previous post, but our posts crossed. So here it is instead.

That might sound pretty harsh as opposed to normal libertarian thought, but I cannot derive a rational principle from allowing such crap to be sanctioned. At an extreme level, I would be really down on a person—meaning I would want him to go to prison—who saw vital information of an impending terrorist attack, knew what it was, and stood by to see the fireworks as a spectator without warning anyone even by phone (supposing he had one). I am totally convinced of the rational morality of my position, especially according to the survival standard.

You keep leaving out the damage. Why?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I made the following an edit to my previous post, but our posts crossed. So here it is instead.

That might sound pretty harsh as opposed to normal libertarian thought, but I cannot derive a rational principle from allowing such crap to be sanctioned. At an extreme level, I would be really down on a person—meaning I would want him to go to prison—who saw vital information of an impending terrorist attack, knew what it was, and stood by to see the fireworks as a spectator without warning anyone even by phone (supposing he had one). I am totally convinced of the rational morality of my position, especially according to the survival standard.

You keep leaving out the damage. Why?

Michael

We're still crossing posts. I just hadn't gotten that far yet. Also, damage can be caused in the moral context but it isn't rights' violating. So a father may tell his son not to darken his threshold ever again but it's not necessarily a police matter.

--Brant

Edited April 13, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Damage? A man is dead. Why? What does this mean?

--Brant

Edited April 13, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

Peikoff: "Q: Am I morally obligated to call for help if I see someone in a car accident or experiencing a heart attack?

"This is obviously from someone who does not know what the Objectivist view of selfishness is. Absolutely yes, you are morally obligated. If you have chosen to live in a society of human beings and your mode of survival depends on your trade with them then you have to value human life so far as it's not guilty or criminal to your knowledge. In that case if you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved then only a psychopath would turn away from such cases. And that would mean besides all the psychological things a direct contradiction of the value of human life. You can't value your life and decide to live with others of your species and say, 'They're nothing to me, I don't care if they live or die.' That's self-contradiction."

I agree wirh Peikoff's overall point -- that it is immoral not to help someone one encounters who is in a life-threatening situation -- but I don't agree with his justification for it. That is, I don't agree that the reason why we should help others is because our survival depends on our trade with others in our society. Does this mean that if I were traveling, say, in Italy, and I witnessed a car accident, it would be okay for me to walk away because I don't trade with the people in that society? Surely the simple value of human life -- whether Armercan or Italian or Bulgarian -- is sufficient justification for Peikoff's point. It is enough to say, as he does say, "You can't value your life and decide to live with others of your species and say, "They're nothing to me, I don't care if they live or die.'"

Further, his statement that you should help if "you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved," is impossibly vague. What if I happen to know that the person having a heart attack once stole a smsall sum of money -- do I walk away? If I have an important appointment that helping him would cause me to miss -- do I walk away? Peikoff here opens a hornet's nest, but does not close it. I would not help if I saw Hitler or an equivalent having a heart attack; I would not help if the life of someone I loved depended on my immediate presence; but the concept of knowing no evil about a person and no sacrifice being involved does not begin to cover the distance between the stealer of a small sum of money and Hitler, or between a dental appointment and the life of someone I love. These are issues Peikoiff does not cover here, nor, to my knowledge, anywhere else, and they require attention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher, you wrote that "the golden rule must be observed in all value-related behavior." George Bernard Shaw made me aware of the defiiciency of the golden rule as a guide to action when he wrote, "the problem is that your neighbor may not want done to him what you want done to you." I prefer Hillel's statement: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. "

Barbara

[Christopher]

Christopher, you wrote that "the golden rule must be observed in all value-related behavior." George Bernard Shaw made me aware of the defiiciency of the golden rule as a guide to action when he wrote, "the problem is that your neighbor may not want done to him what you want done to you." I prefer Hillel's statement: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. "

Barbara

Hi Barbara,

Thank you for your comment. I've been thinking about this, and I'm going to expand on the subject in response to GBS's comment.

I think that the golden rule should apply to universal (i.e. not personally oriented) values. A personal value is: I love my father Bob. A universal value is: I value life. True everyone should not love my father (but who wouldn't?), but that doesn't mean everyone should not value life. Personal values are understood to be self-specific, whereas universal values represent values of how man should operate within the universe. For example, here are some of my universal values:

Life

Honesty

Autonomy

Compassion

These are not self-specific. There may be individuals who do not want to be treated as we would like to treat them, but we cannot accept GBS's implicit suggestion that it is better to treat people how they want to be treated in the name of, say, autonomy or compassion. If someone wants to be dependent, there is no Objectivist value supported by helping them remain dependent. If someone wants to be treated like a slave and tortured, there still remain no moral grounds to acquiesce to their desires regardless of whether they trade anything for it. We cannot support the value of autonomy by allowing others to autonomously choose dependence. Nor can we support the value of compassion by compassionately torturing others at their request.

Of course, I can see a fire-brand preacher saying that people must believe in God or burn in hell, that it is their responsibility to help others find God. These preachers could use my logic above to support their cause. However, my logic is founded on a set of premises far different than the fire-brand preacher, and therefore my logic does not apply to their assertions.

Best,

Chris

[tjohnson]

I think that the golden rule should apply to universal (i.e. not personally oriented) values. A personal value is: I love my father Bob. A universal value is: I value life. True everyone should not love my father (but who wouldn't?), but that doesn't mean everyone should not value life. Personal values are understood to be self-specific, whereas universal values represent values of how man should operate within the universe.

When you say 'life' do you mean your own life? Or do you mean like bacteria, viruses, reptiles, etc. as well?

[Christopher]

I think that the golden rule should apply to universal (i.e. not personally oriented) values. A personal value is: I love my father Bob. A universal value is: I value life. True everyone should not love my father (but who wouldn't?), but that doesn't mean everyone should not value life. Personal values are understood to be self-specific, whereas universal values represent values of how man should operate within the universe.

When you say 'life' do you mean your own life? Or do you mean like bacteria, viruses, reptiles, etc. as well?

For me valuing life means valuing all life, but there is a hierarchy. Man's life is the pinnacle, followed by conscious mammalian life on down. For Rand it sounds similar - the focus of supporting the "life value" starts with respecting one's own life and going from there (which I agree with).

For me, the value of life is depersonalized. Valuing myself comes from integrity towards valuing life. Although Rand quoted the reverse (valuing self leads to valuing life), I think it's the same feedback loop pattern we're observing. After all, Rand begins "Virtue of Selfishness" by starting from a universal de-personalized perspective (the nature of life, the nature of man), and then ending that the appropriate universal practice of valuing life is to value one's own life.

Chris

[BaalChatzaf]

For me valuing life means valuing all life, but there is a hierarchy. Man's life is the pinnacle, followed by conscious mammalian life on down. For Rand it sounds similar - the focus of supporting the "life value" starts with respecting one's own life and going from there (which I agree with).

All life? What about the life of obnoxious and harmful pathogens? Do you value such life? What about the lives of evil people who mean harm to you and yours? Do you value those lives? In order to value ALL life, one would have to ignore which kinds of life are harmful to you and which are beneficial. In short you would have to cease making distinctions that are vital to your survival.

And what about quality? Empirically speaking about 85 percent of everything is mediocre to crappy. Do you wish to ignore that which is fine and good vs that which is base and inferior?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[ginny]

Ba'al ... get a grip. I don't know if your number of 85% of people being mediocre/crappy is correct, but let's go with that. Mediocre means average. Probably nice and law abiding. Might even be on this site. In other words, just plain human. If you could, you wouldn't help them? I don't need a person's philosophic context to be of assistance. If it turns out I went out of my way for a green humanitarian, oh, well. At least I can live with myself. The green hummy will have a hard lesson ahead.

BTW, I don't know the percentage of people who are "crappy," or even what crappy means, but if it means ill-tempered and grouchy, for example, what the hell, I'd help them, too.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... but if it means ill-tempered and grouchy, for example, what the hell, I'd help them, too.

Ginny,

Does that mean you would help Ba'al?

Michael

[ginny]

Of course I would. If only for the opportunity to give him a swift kick in the butt afterwards.

Besides, since when is being a grouch a crime?

[Judith]

Further, his statement that you should help if "you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved," is impossibly vague. What if I happen to know that the person having a heart attack once stole a smsall sum of money -- do I walk away? If I have an important appointment that helping him would cause me to miss -- do I walk away? Peikoff here opens a hornet's nest, but does not close it. I would not help if I saw Hitler or an equivalent having a heart attack; I would not help if the life of someone I loved depended on my immediate presence; but the concept of knowing no evil about a person and no sacrifice being involved does not begin to cover the distance between the stealer of a small sum of money and Hitler, or between a dental appointment and the life of someone I love. These are issues Peikoiff does not cover here, nor, to my knowledge, anywhere else, and they require attention.

It is precisely because of the difficulty in drawing the line between "the life of someone I loved depended on my immediate presence" and "a dental appointment" that the Anglo-American common law has (wisely, in my opinion) never required one to render assistance to another. Who is to determine what is an unreasonable sacrifice on another's part? I wouldn't want to make that determination on behalf of another. And I would resent greatly another's presuming to make it on my behalf. So we can continue to look down socially on those who refuse to render assistance in extremely obvious situations where most people would have done so, but let's not EVER talk about making assistance mandatory.

[ginny]

Judith, I admit I've only skimmed this thread, so I may be out of line, but did anyone say helping should be mandatory? I would think it self-evident that no one should be FORCED to help. Of course, no one can FORCE me to like someone who ignores another's need for assistance when he's in a position to render it relatively easily. I assume we are talking about simple good will and benevolence toward our fellow man, no guns and laws being pointed at our heads. For instance, I all too often end up giving up my seat on the bus to someone who needs it more, although I have arthritis in my knees and it hurts to stand. Sure, it a sacrifice, but I do it because it's the polite and right thing to do, not because I have to. Believe it or not, I've seen healthy young twenty-somethings stare at a blind person on the bus and REFUSE to stand up. Are they legally obligated to help the blind? I guess not. Morally? Well, I can't think of any morality that would force them to stand up. But I hope there's a hot seat in hell reserved for them anyway.

[jeff]

This discussion reminds of the final two episodes of Seinfeld where Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer all ended up in jail because they violated the "Good Samaritan Law" by not helping the fat guy who was being carjacked in Latham, Massachusetts.

But I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that laws like this actually exist in Europe and Canada - "Duty to rescue":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

[Judith]

Judith, I admit I've only skimmed this thread, so I may be out of line, but did anyone say helping should be mandatory? I would think it self-evident that no one should be FORCED to help. Of course, no one can FORCE me to like someone who ignores another's need for assistance when he's in a position to render it relatively easily. I assume we are talking about simple good will and benevolence toward our fellow man, no guns and laws being pointed at our heads. For instance, I all too often end up giving up my seat on the bus to someone who needs it more, although I have arthritis in my knees and it hurts to stand. Sure, it a sacrifice, but I do it because it's the polite and right thing to do, not because I have to. Believe it or not, I've seen healthy young twenty-somethings stare at a blind person on the bus and REFUSE to stand up. Are they legally obligated to help the blind? I guess not. Morally? Well, I can't think of any morality that would force them to stand up. But I hope there's a hot seat in hell reserved for them anyway.

I thought of your point when I made my point. I'm a bit hypersensitive on this issue precisely because of the laws in places like France making it mandatory to render assistance to others. It can be a very short jump from "morally obligatory" to "legally obligatory", so I wanted to raise the point.

Judith

[Dragonfly]

I thought of your point when I made my point. I'm a bit hypersensitive on this issue precisely because of the laws in places like France making it mandatory to render assistance to others.

And rightly so.

[ginny]

We agree, Judith.

Ginny