Any
discussion of a better, safer world involves, sooner or later the conflicting
concepts of altruism and egoism. One of the best ways to understand this
conflict is comparing the views of Ayn Rand in the "Ethics of
Emergency" and Peter Singer in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty".
While
both authors support their views with strong arguments and complex scenarios,
it is difficult to take one side over the other. The two reduce the concepts or
ethics to a matter of choosing between two goals: self-preservation (Ayn Rand)
and species-preservation (Peter Singer).
In real life, these two goals do not
and should exclude one another. On the contrary, in most of the cases, they
complement one another. Man should not have to choose between his life and
those of others, but rather learn and focus on how to live his own life in such
a way as to positively influence other lives.
Ayn Rand's Ethics of Emergency
"Ethics of Emergencies"
was included in the 1964 collection of papers and essays belonging to Nathaniel
Branden and Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. As its title suggests, it discusses the fact that
man's ethical principles are based on emergency situations. The author uses the
classic scenario of the "lifeboat" as representative for an emergency
and promotes the survival of the fittest.
According to Rand, in emergency
situations, it is perfectly natural, moral for one person to sacrifice another
one in order to save themselves. The scenario imposes that the person in
question choose between their life and the life of someone else on the boat,
reduces life to a matter of killing or being killed and man's condition to that
of a murderer or a victim. Man is expected to learn a lesson and choose between
becoming a murderer and sacrificing his life for a higher purpose.
The problem with Ayn Rand's
theory is that daily life emergencies generally do not involve killing or being
killed, nor do they involve a conflict of interests. Trying to create an
analogy between the lifeboat scenario and real life is impossible, simply
because there are numerous situations in which man can make choices that are
beneficial for themselves and for the others at the same time. By accepting the
idea of a life dominated by conflicts of interest, man will end up creating
unnecessary conflicts, sacrificing himself unnecessarily or trampling on other
people's interests even when he has nothing to gain.
The author describes emergencies
as situations in which human life becomes impossible. The person that survives
the lifeboat scenario does so only by removing themselves from the emergency
situation. The shore equals water, food, medical help and, implicitly, an end
of the emergency. During the emergency, however, people lives are in danger.
Then, what if all people found
themselves in such emergency situations at least once in their life, and
followed the moral path described be the author? What if the person one is
supposed to sacrifice in order to reach shore is a surgeon, the member of a
bomb squad that could save thousands of lives or the president of the country? Thousands
of people would have to die. Saving those people would be ethical for them, but
unethical for the person sacrificed.
The message the essay succeeds
to send is not the one intended by the author, that, in case of emergency,
people have right of life and death over others, but that emergencies should
not be taken too seriously. People should focus not on surviving such situations,
but on avoiding them or ending them sooner, they should work together to find
solutions rather than sacrifice one another.
"The Singer Solution to
World Poverty"
In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Peter Singer presents
the hypothetical case of a man named Bob who has invested all his savings in an
uninsured Bugatti, a car that he parks on the side of a railroad before going for
a walk. He notices a child in the distance, playing on the tracks, in front
of a runaway train.
Bob has to choose between his car and the life of the
child. He could use the nearby stitch and divert the incoming train onto the
siding, but, since that would mean seeing his precious car damaged, he chooses
to allow the death of the child.
The author makes it clear that
Bob's choice was mistaken, and most people would probably agree that he should
have saved the child. The car is a symbol of luxury, of the things that people
work hard for but could and should live without, as they are less valuable than
human life.
People have the chance to save lives every day, by giving up on
things they do not necessarily need and donating them or their value to
charity. Many of them, however, just like the protagonist, treasure their own
comfort and preferences more than they treasure the lives of starving or
handicapped children, for example. According to the author, these people
do not live up to their moral obligations.
While Peter Singer's
illustration of an emergency situation and the alternatives he offers may seem
closer to real life and more acceptable than those of Ayn Rand, there are still
many details that leave room for debate. For example, Bob is the only person
present at the scene, while anyone (millions of other people) can contribute to
the salvation of starving or handicapped children, to name a cause.
The author accepts the
possibility for others to have be present, but argues that their presence does
not exempt the protagonist from responsibility. According to him, for man, knowing
that others would not do anything to help those in need means being sure that his
efforts will save lives, and having the moral obligation to actually save them.
Singer's perception of moral
obligation is interesting and easy to agree with at first sight, but, in real
life, situations like the one he describes are unlikely, even impossible.
People will rarely or never invest their lifetime savings the way Bob did and
neglect them. Also, they are and should never be forced to choose between their
most valuable assets and saving a life. According to him, people should work
hard, not for their own benefit, but to help others.
While the intention is, indeed,
noble and laudable, where does it leave motivation? Would people be able to
invest the same effort knowing that the results of their work would be enjoyed
by someone else? Most of them struggle to offer their loved ones access to a
better life.
Would they be as motivated having to see their loved ones settle
with the basics and giving the rest to charity? There is also the question of
how one's donations will get to the children whose lives need to be saved. It
is a well known fact that not all the money donated to charity actually ends up
supporting the cause they were meant for.
While Peter Singer's
perception of morality is easier to cope with than that of Ayn Rand, the
situation he uses to support it is unrealistic and subjective. He uses children
as the symbol of poverty, because they represent a cause that would impress
anyone. However, poverty is often used in reference to people living on social
welfare, often of their own choice. Would it be fair for the working class to
support such people? Is it not fair for those who work harder to enjoy higher
satisfaction?
Conclusion
The two theories presented are
in obvious conflict. One argues in favor or self-preservation at all cost and
entitles man to sacrifice others in order to save himself. The other one
encourages man to sacrifice himself in order to save others. However, both
visions stress the importance of making a decision and assuming it. Man is free
to decide whether to sacrifice or be sacrificed, to kill or be killed, to save
or to condemn. Whatever decision he makes, it is better than running away from
responsibility.
However, both theories use
extreme situations, unlikely to occur in real life, as examples, and they are
extreme. Life is not a matter of killing or being killed, condemning or being
condemned. People can work together to find solutions, they can enjoy the
results of their work and still help others.
Neither the rational egoism
presented by Ayn Rand nor the altruism suggested by Singer as a solution to
poverty is a viable ethic model. A balance between the two is the most
desirable, as it would mean having the courage to fight for one's ideals and
looking after the others at the same time, it would enable self-preservation
and species-preservation altogether.
