who acted morally, who acted immorally, in this recent incident?

Ayn Rand tells us:
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."

Please ponder a recent incident in the light of that Rand quote.

For those who don't click on links:

A pregnant woman collapsed in a coffee shop where she was working, while two emergency medical technicians (EMTs), who were off-duty, were having lunch in the coffee shop. The coffee shop owner asked the EMTs to provide medical care. The EMTs responded by asking the shop owner to call 911, then leaving the scene. (Someone called an ambulance; the woman soon died in a nearby hospital; her fetus was too premature to survive.)

The EMTs' employer (the Fire Department of New York) has suspended these EMTs, pointing out that each employee of the Fire Department takes an oath to assist others whenever they need emergency medical care. (Plainly these EMTs violated that oath -- a condition of their employment -- and thus acted immorally).
QUESTIONS:

/a/ If their employer had not required such an oath --
if they had possessed the capability, but NOT the sworn obligation, to help -- would their action while off-duty
(advising "Phone 911" and leaving the scene)
have been morally acceptable
on the ground that the woman would have had no claim on their help?

/b/ If their employer had not required such an oath,
would it also have been morally acceptable if these off-duty EMTs
had taken no action at all:
if they had simply left the scene
(without even suggesting that someone else should get help)
or if they had chosen to ignore the matter completely:
to just continue enjoying their lunch near a collapsed pregnant woman while someone else called an ambulance?

/c/ If their employer had not required such an oath, and if they had chosen either /a/ or /b/ as their course of action, could we classify that choice as morally repugnant although permissible?
(permissible because one has a right to exist without aiding others --
but repugnant if, in life-or-death situations, a psychologically healthy human being should *want* to aid others?)
Or would that view be Objectively incorrect?

Post 1

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 9:39am

What do you mean morally acceptable? There is a difference between criminal and morally repugnant.

I have to assume that if the EMT's were not already dispatched to some other call that the proper action would have been for them to both render assistance and to advise the owner to call 911. The EMT personnel wear uniforms. Implicit in that is that while the uniform is on they should render aid when needed unless already on route to a call. Otherwise they could just carry badges and show them whenever they felt like treating someone.

They were undoubtedly grossly derelict and obviously deserve to be fired and stripped of benefits. I don't know the law but I wouldn't be surprised if there were grounds for a civil suit.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 11:16am

I agree with you here, and will sanction your post.
By "morally acceptable" I meant "something you can't morally prohibit or punish, however repugnant you may find it."

For example: I would find it morally repugnant to create or to purchase, for the sole purpose of destroying it, a gallery of magnificent paintings and statues -- but I could not ask to have such an action made illegal. (The destroyer owns the paintings and statues, fair and square: to do with them what he or she wills.)

Post 3

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 5:11am

I also agree with Ted's response, but am curious if this type scenario has been discussed in more detail somewhere in older posts. I'd like to read them.

Supposing the circumstances were slightly different... the EMT's were off duty & out of uniform, or there were no EMT's in the diner, just a handful of people with maybe very limited medical knowledge, on maybe just one patron and the cook.

I think the natural tendency of most people is to want to help, but there are various reasons (competence, confidence, personal factors) why people might still hold back. I think there is a compelling logical reason for people to help in such other situations, but is there also a moral obligation?

jt

Post 4

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 8:01am

If someone gets sick on the NYC subway so many people crowd around trying to help that the person often goes into shock and dies just from the attention.

There is obviously no duty to render aid which puts you in danger yourself or which you do not have the ability to give, but it is subhuman not to notify the authorities. If I could find a way to formulate a proper rule that would criminalize stepping over a dying person without at least contacting the authorities, or doing the minimum possible, like moving a stroller out of traffic, I would happily do so.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 9:30am

Kate, read the article and thread "Altruism Against Freedom" for much more discussion along a similar theme.

Rather than belabor my thoughts again, read the linked thread to see what I and many others here have said in the past about the subject of legally compelled service to others in emergencies.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 9:43am

Ted,

Depending upon how they are framed (and I claim no specific knowledge), those known as "depraved indifference" laws might somehow fit your specifications.

jt

Post 7

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 9:49am

Well, Jay, here's your opportunity to provide us with one of those rational regulations you like. If I could do it I would.

Post 8

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 11:28am

Ted,

If I could find a way to formulate a proper rule that would criminalize...

I'm not seeing an Objectivist basis for such law, but here is a link that lists some statutes on legal duty to rescue or render aid if you'd like to see some attempts at formulating a proper rule.

Jordan

Post 9

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 11:51am

The Minnesota statute seems the least objectionable morally.

Minnesota Stat. Ann. � 604A.01 A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall ... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person[, which] may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others [or suffer] petty misdemeanor penalties

The statutes that specify sex crimes against minors are obviously political grandstanding. And if you can exempt family members, then why do strangers suffer a penalty?

I still don't know how to justify it politically. Failure to report a crime in progress or a dying victim could possibly be treated as aiding and abetting the criminal. The closest I can come is that being a citizen of a state comes with certain minimal requirements like serving jury duty and answering subpoenas. But how to instantiate that is a problem.

If I were summoned to jury duty for a trial of someone who depravedly let someone else die I wouldn't sit on the jury in order to nullify, I would tell the judge that I couldn't convict. I am just that kind of a monster.

Post 10

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 2:54pm

I take the strict and severe approach here. My heart is with Ted's position, but the law should not be. We should not make it legal to imprison or fine someone for failure to render assistance, no matter how minor the assistance, and no matter how grave the consequences to the victim. There are some things that are resolved by the law. Other things rely on culture and on character. We can not create utopia with a perfect set of laws, somethings just need better people - and rendering aid is one of them.

Post 11

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 4:49pm

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values..." Ayn Rand; The Ethics of Emergencies; The VOS

The oath those EMTs took with the Fire Department of New York is enough to constitute their rational self-interest. A doctor takes an oath to do no harm, and when he does harm, he is held accountable. I'll bet part of the oath of the EMTs was to do no harm. Stepping over a patient obviously did harm.

Post 12

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 6:19am

If they took an oath, and if they violated that oath, then they could be morally culpable to some degree - lacking in integrity. They might justly be held to have some civil liability in a tort action because of an oath and having taken taxpayer money to render a duty and failing to do just that. And they might have violated a contractual arrangement with their employer.

But none of that addresses the simple fact that there should not be a law on the books that would make people into criminals for not being altruistic, and that is what that kind of statute would be.

Post 13

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 11:47am

It is not altruism to comply with your contract, or your oath, and I'm certain they would not argue that it was "by reference to their own rational self-interest and hierarchy of values..." that that they did what they did. I'm certain that in retrospect they see that their "descriptive, psychologically" selfish action was the opposite of their own rational self-interest.

Post 14

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 2:09pm

It's not even altruism to call the police if you see a crime or a fire, or to move a stroller out of oncoming traffic, if, as was already specified, it is at no significant risk to you. Altruism implies the sacrifice of a real value of yours to an unvalued other. If it comes down to letting someone die rather than using your cell phone minutes you a sociopath, and you are acting according to your specific nature as a sociopath. The question is not whether the law should expect people to be altruistic. The question is whether there is any way is just to punish people for not doing what a moral person should.

Part of expecting to be aided when you are a victim of crime is the expectation that others will report it if you are are the one in trouble. I think it would certainly be reasonable for the state (i.e., other people) to refuse to protect you if you blatantly refuse to report a crime yourself. For the state not to protect you due to your own inaction is not an initiation of force.

Once again there is the anarchist presumption here that you as an individual don't owe anything to the state, but it will protect you when the chips are down. (I assume no one here is arguing that he doesn't want others to call the police if he is attacked on the street.) Consider this poll question to which two thirds of the respondents voted false:

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state.

Well, if statement is false, then it's negation is true. Is the statement, "those who refuse to support and defend a state have a claim to protection by that state" a true one? The state, if it does not also include you, is other people. What claim do those who refuse to pay taxes or volunteer for the military, not even to mention report crimes or act as first responders when reasonable to the assistence of other people?

Who, exactly, are the ones expecting altruism?

Post 15

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 4:26pm

Curtis, Ted,

I'm talking about the justification for the creation of a law that compels people to help others. That is altruistic - I don't know what else you'd call a law that makes a person a criminal if they don't stop and help someone else who needs help. To those according to their need, from those according to their ability, and at the point of a gun.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/07, 4:34pm)

Post 16

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 8:34pm

Not one person here has said they support a law requiring forced Samaritanism or altruism of any sort, and everyone here has said that its inappropriate to expect a person to put himself in jeopardy to help another.

One of the essential points of an argument is to take into account in full context what other people have said, and address that, not repeat over and over the same irrelevant emotion-laden slogans.

Here is an argument to which "Altruism!" is not a counter-argument:

(1) Governments are made of people. They do not exist to sacrifice themselves to non-participants. You cannot expect the protection of a government you do not help support.

(2) If you want the government's protection, not only money but also other absolutely minimal and perfectly reasonable actions may be required of you on certain rare occasions.

(3) If you do not wish to take such minimal reasonable and rare actions when it is objectively determined to be necessary, you do not have to accept the protection of the government. It will neither ask you to sacrifice nor will it sacrifice on your behalf

(3a) One of the things that seems necessary for the function of a minarchist government that people report it to the authorities when their neighbor is being murdered.

(4) If citizens who do not report such crimes under reasonable circumstances were to lose for some time the protection of the same authorities they refused to contact, how, exactly, would that amount to the initiation of force by the state?

(4a) That amounts to giving a person exactly what he himself has asked for with his own actions, withdrawal from the state.

If you don't want to participate in such a minarchist civil society, no one will force you. But you can't expect to force others to protect you at their expense but no cost to yourself.

Post 17

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 8:58pm

Ted,

Maybe I'm missing something. But in post #9 you said, "The Minnesota statute seems the least objectionable morally.

Minnesota Stat. Ann. � 604A.01 A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall ... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person[, which] may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others [or suffer] petty misdemeanor penalties."

So, according to you, there is a law mandating altruism. And that is what I was replying to when I said, "...there should not be a law on the books that would make people into criminals for not being altruistic..." and, again, when I said, "We should not make it legal to imprison or fine someone for failure to render assistance..."

Unless someone has made you the dictator of the threads, I should be able to offer observations of that sort. But I'm finding that I'd prefer not to engage with you when you are one of your pissy moods. I'll wait for the good Ted to come back.

Your argument in post #16 is full of logical errors, but I find I'm no more interested in pointing them out, than I would be in petting a porcupine.

Post 18

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 10:03am

Steve, I'm not talking about altruism either. I did say, and I quote:

It is not altruism to comply with your contract, or your oath

and I did say

I'm certain they would not argue that it was "by reference to their own rational self-interest and hierarchy of values..." that that they did what they did.

So when you say

I'm talking about the justification for the creation of a law that compels people to help others

then it's obvious we are not discussing the same thing. But you began this part of the discussion yourself in Post 10:

We should not make it legal to imprison or fine someone for failure to render assistance, no matter how minor the assistance, and no matter how grave the consequences to the victim.

Really? Ted said: "There is a difference between criminal and morally repugnant." Rand said:

"The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: 'Other men are of value because they are of the same species as myself.' In revering living entities, they are revering their own life. This is the psychological base of any emotions of sympathy and any feeling of 'species solidarity'"

[from The Ethics of Emergencies; T VOS] I do not think it is "legally forced altruism" to expect men in a civilization to act in a manner that serves and protects that civilization if it is a rational one. If we cannot expect other men to help us when it is no skin off their asses to do so, and when we would expect men to act toward others with this respect and good will born of the psychological base of "species solidarity", then we can make no rational laws "for the general welfare."

That is what we are discussing here: the general welfare. If you see a hit-and-run accident, and you yourself run, that is crime by law (though it isn't guaranteed you will be prosecuted.) There are many other instances of this kind of "general welfare" law, but one is enough to suffice.

No one here is talking about forcing you to give your dime to a beggar. We're just saying don't be morally repugnant by showing your true colors and turning your back on the members of your own species. Rand did say, ""The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values...", and she finishes the quote about "species solidarity" bringing out "respect and good will" by writing this:

"It is on the ground of that generalized good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency--and only in an emergency." [italics hers]

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 1/08, 10:09am)

Post 19

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 11:37am