|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 | ||||
 | ||||
| The Ethics of Emergencies by Michael E. Marotta “What would you do if you were in a lifeboat and …” This question brings into sharp focus the application of any system of ethics within a social context. All such challenges come down to the same problem: faced with an emergency, would you violate the rights of others or would you forfeit your own life for a higher good? This is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, the problem of the lifeboat rests on a deep misunderstanding of how to live a moral life. Therefore, no answer to date has been completely satisfactory. In “The Ethics of Emergencies” in The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand said that the very question supposes a malevolent universe in which disasters are normal. At any moment, you might find yourself faced with a life-threatening mishap. Furthermore, said Rand, the very nature of an emergency abrogates any consideration of “rights” or “morality.” An emergency, she pointed out, is a state in which it is metaphysically impossible to survive. No one can live under water or within a fire. Thus, she dismissed the question of how to solve the problem of two men in a lifeboat that can only hold one. In such an emergency, you should do whatever you can to save yourself (and to help others, if possible) with your primary goal being to bring the emergency situation to an end. This, of course, begs the question. Real lifeboat situations are very much a part of our world. You can find more than enough examples just by putting “cruise ship accident” into your Internet search engine. Another set of even more desperate circumstances can be found with an online search for “nightclub fire.” Oddly enough, the phrase “Martian invasion” also returns a lot of hits, but if you read the stories, you see that these are all fiction. The question, “What would you do if…” must be followed by something realistic. The reason why is that the unreal, however imagined, cannot exist. More to the point, any sketchy scenario, based on anti-experiential circumstances will have an infinite number of unstated premises and conclusions. Therefore, that kind of question is impossible to answer. The distinction between realistic problems and metaphysically impossible debating points was described nicely by Stuart Hayashi in posts to two Objectivist websites. “The Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics” appeared on Rebirth of Reason on November 23, 2007, and on Objectivist Living on November 24, 2007. “What would you do if…” ignores the context of how you came to be in this situation. If you read the actual experiences of real people caught in untenable situations, you will see that most (if not all) can be resolved to what aviators call “an accident chain.” In America today, there are about 600,000 private pilots and about one-third of us are members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Standardized training for all pilots endorsed or mandated by the federal government includes the understanding that most (if not all) aviation accidents are the result of a chain of events – and if someone had paid attention to any link in that chain, the accident very probably would have been avoided. This assessment is realistic. It is grounded in experiential data from objective investigations placed into rational frameworks of explanation that are tested by new evidence. As real circumstances, they have real answers. What would you do if you were flying your plane and you suddenly ran out of fuel? In other words: What you do if you suddenly discovered that you had neglected to fuel your plane, or to verify that it had been properly fueled for you? The answer is that you fly the plane until the last piece stops moving. You find the safest place to land. There are many alternatives. Few of them will be good. The question “What would you do if the only safe place to land was a playground with children?” rests on the fallacy of the stolen concept: a playground with children is not a safe place to land. Your circumstances are not their fault and you must solve your problem without endangering anyone else. The pilot is completely responsible for the operation of the aircraft. This includes every antecedent link in an accident chain. The paradigmatic tragedy is the loss of the Titanic. That accident chain has been examined and mythologized many times. We seem not to have learned much since. We too easily grant to others sovereignty over our circumstances. We board airliners and cruise ships. We sit in restaurants or dance in nightclubs. We spend our days in offices or schools or factories and we never make any effort to learn safety procedures, or to check for weakness in those procedures. We do not examine either the physical plant or our social context. Ultimately, no matter where you are or what you are doing, you have to take responsibility not just for being there, but how you got there, as well how you are going to get out. Staying at home is not an option. The most recent statistics from the National Safety Council show that death by falling from a bed, chair or other furniture is almost as likely as death by air transport. As of 2006, your odds of dying from an in-home fall are about 1 in 379,000 while your risk in an airliner is about 1 in 484,000. If you ever stand on a chair, you are somewhat safer in an airliner than you are in your own home. No matter where you are, life is dangerous. That is the reason why a little thinking goes a long way to ensuring your survival. This has been true for about 2.5 million years, since the Pleistocene days of homo habilis (handy man) in what we now call the Olduvai Gorge along the eastern Serengeti Plain. The assertion that emergency situations require special solutions specifically because life is metaphysically impossible inside a fire or under water is fallacious. Life at the edge of a glacier was metaphysically impossible for homo habilis, which is one reason why they did not live there. When I finished the first draft of this article, in early December in central Michigan, it was 19º F (-7º C) outside, with snow and ice on the ground. However, I sat inside a home heated with natural gas to 65º F (18º C) and I wore three layers of cotton fiber over most of my body. As of this writing (September 21, 2008), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration undersea laboratory, Aquarius, is on Day 6 of a ten-day exploration in a “metaphysically unsurvivable” environment. The International Space Station continues to be occupied and supplied via space shuttles and soyuz capsules. The ISS has been occupied continuously in this “metaphysically unsurvivable” environment since November 2, 2000. But what if there were an emergency? People who expect to face emergencies study, practice, learn and train for such contingencies. You can find books and videos that will help you understand your options. The Official Boy Scout Handbook is a classic. More intense briefings can be found in books and videos from the armed forces and their special forces. The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook by Joshua Piven and David Borgenicht was published in 1999, in the run-up to Y2K. It covers how to escape from quicksand or a mountain lion, how to jump from a bridge or a moving car, how to perform a tracheotomy or deliver a baby. Of course this book comes with a lot of warnings, caveats and disclaimers. Nonetheless, these are all solvable problems. If you read the stories of actual tragedies – especially true lifeboat situations – you will see that in some cases nothing could be done and the loss of life was inevitable. However, many of these reports tell of people who failed to use reason. They ignored opportunities. They overlooked resources. Broadly, they acted on the basis of undefined, ill-defined or erroneous moralities. Morality is more than just your conduct among other people. As Ayn Rand pointed out, it is alone on a deserted island that you need morality most. Morality defines your actions and those choices must ensure your survival. If you are shipwrecked with a case of rum, spending your time drunk would be contrary to your own best interests. Though you probably would not be bothered much by the fact, your time would be short. On the other hand, if you stay sober and alert, you stand a much better chance of survival. At root, every choice is a moral choice. Some (chocolate or vanilla) are trivial. Others (which career; whom for spouse) are deeply consequential. What you do when the ship you are on strikes an iceberg depends on your morality. On March 13, 1841, the American ship William Brown, sailed from Liverpool for Philadelphia, in the United States. She carried cargo, 17 crew and 65 passengers. At 10 o’clock at night on April 19, she struck an iceberg and sank. Eight of the crew were in a small “jolly boat.” The rest of the crew and 32 passengers (41 in all) got into a longboat. The other passengers perished when the William Brown sank about an hour and half later. The longboat was not seaworthy and began to leak. Eventually, it was decided to lighten it by throwing overboard some of the men. Oddly enough, hours later, as morning broke, they continued to throw men (and two women) overboard. The occupants of the longboat were half-dressed, many of them in bedclothes. They kept afloat by bailing and by fashioning several expedients to plug the leak. The longboat actually had plenty of provisions and after another day, they were rescued by another ship. The incident became a case at law, because one of the passengers brought charges against another for manslaughter. Sailing across the north Atlantic in March is dangerous. Would you know how to inspect a lifeboat? If ordered to abandon ship, would you dress first? What would you take with you? Those left on board had 90 minutes in which to find some expedients among the cargo. Crates could have been used as rafts. Apparently nothing was done. Also, while one of the passengers, Holmes, was commended for his bravery and clear head in keeping the survivors safe, it was he who was indicted for throwing the others overboard. (He served six months in solitary confinement at hard labor.) No charges were brought against the crew. That they all survived, though half the passengers perished, is not unusual – and should be considered by anyone taking a voyage even today. On August 3, 1991, the MTS Oceanos sank off the coast of South Africa. In poor repair, it floundered in heavy seas taking on water below decks. All power was lost and in fact, the entire plumbing system flooded, with water poured out of cabin showers, sinks and toilets. The captain gave the order to abandon ship. The crew packed their bags and left. The passengers then discovered their plight. They were saved by the clear thinking and direct actions of the ship’s entertainers, magician Julian Butler and guitarist Moss Hills. Butler and Hills got one lifeboat loaded before the Oceanos rolled over on the others. With all of the passengers in life vests, Hills found the bridge, powered up the radio and called for help. He then worked to get the passengers airlifted into helicopters. Hills and Butler were the last two to leave the ship. The similarities and differences in these two lifeboat situations underscore the fact that emergencies demand exactly the same morality as everyday life. Rationality demands recognition for the facts of reality. Respect for your own life requires that you discover those facts. Goodwill toward others is not mindless altruism, but recognition of the truth that each of us can be valuable. Emergencies are time-dependent events with great potential. Most people freeze into inaction, passive observers of their own destruction. The bon vivant Holmes became a homicidal machine, throwing people overboard without reason. Two entertainers rose to heroism. They all were who they were before unequivocal events overtook their lives. Had these disasters not brought out their inner natures, their lives would have most likely played out much the same, though in a narrower range of actions. Seldom are we challenged by unexpected emergencies. It may be true that the people caught in an emergency did not expect it. However, few emergencies are truly unpredictable. They are at worst, statistically unlikely. Anyone who boards a boat or ship must be aware that it could sink or flounder. Trains and buses break down, as can your own automobile. The Pacific Ring of Fire, Tornado Alley and the Blue Northern are all known natural occurrences. Hurricanes and ice storms are expectable. Like the running of sap in trees or the migrations of birds, these phenomena occur annually. They have seasons. It is a clichéd response to someone unnecessarily upset over a social triviality that “lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.” Sometimes, there is nothing you can do. Life is not guaranteed. You might perish – and you might not see it coming. That fact does not negate the laws of morality. It is by the direct application of objective morality that your survival will be most likely. FURTHER READING
| ||||
| ||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
