"While I might agree with this partially... most "calamities" we experience in the modern era are not tests of "fitness".

If, for example, someone pulls out a gun and starts firing randomly into a crowd, how exactly does it benefit natural selection to let him kill whomever he can until he runs out of bullets..."

The test of fitness - in this particular scenario - wouldn't be in allowing the gunman to keep firing off rounds, but rather in the abilities of the individuals in the crowd to defend themselves from the initial strike (bulletproof vests, agility enough to find cover, dumb luck even...) as well as destroy the threat (i.e. kill the gunman).

Whoever can best survive the attack - and even better, kill the attacker - shall be the ones nature judges as being "fit" and those that die aren't.

Also Cudmaster,

"However, there is a very rational theory of survival (of the group) that goes along the lines of "one man can make kids with lots of women, so save the women" and another one that goes something like "more kids can fit on a boat"."

Of course, there's no guarantee that the women in the first scenario will actually breed with the male in question, and why should I surrender resources to save other people's kids instead of those I judge as being my friends and family. As far as I'm concerned, the life of even one of my own is easily worth the lives of any ten strangers - I'm the type of person who will sacrifice the masses to save those who matter to me if I had to do that.

No matter how you cut it, it all comes down to a value judgement: who's life is worth more and why does the decision maker come to that conclusion. Contrary to popular belief, you can put a price on human life...

If anyone doubted the pathologies that Objectivism induces, Cudmaster's comment provides some great examples. I'd especially highlight this comment about how he'd prefer to save children from burning buildings, rather than adults, because the children are more likely to grow up to be good capitalists, while adults are more likely to be evil socialists who deserve to die

So then how would you rationalize saving an adult parasite loser who through the rest of his life will only make the lives of everyone else worse, before someone that either is a benefit to society or may become one or to throw women in, that may birth one.

Realistically in an emergency situation you don't have time to analyze the various philosophies of the people you are trying to save... in general you save whomever you find in need of saving, and you don't question them.

But yeah, if I had the time and need to choose I'd choose the child, and if I knew the predilections of the adults and could pick one of those to save I'd save the one who I thought was the most worthy.

I really can't fathom how that is immoral, and I doubt very much you would do any different, though perhaps your criterion for determining who was the most worthy might be different than mine?

Perhaps you can tell me about it so I can call it pathological... It would only be fair. :)

Oh, and for the record I didn't state that anyone deserved to die, simply that not everyone in the world is worthy of me risking myself to save, but if the only way you can argue against me is to build straw man arguments out of words attributed to me that are not my own... well that's probably "Fair" too. I mean you do deserve to be right just as much as I do. :)

...gee, I can't imagine where they would have gotten THAT impression...

:) I am also amused that the only organization built by "Objectivists" has failed totally to follow the very Philosophy they promote.

It isn't terribly shocking though, every institution mankind has ever made has to my knowledge been rife with individuals who were their for their own reasons, there are plenty of asses in church pews who are agnostic if not atheists, just going along with it for the fringe benefits.

I kind of look at it like this, in Objectivism there is me and there is her, and she is dead.

The funny thing is I don't understand why she even wrote books or allowed a organization to spring up, anyone who was capable of getting it demonstrably doesn't need these things, and anyone who isn't will at best join some group that in it's failure to understand will make her look bad, or at worst will flat out demonize her and any intellectual heirs.

Oh wait, I bet it was to make money. :) I think it worked.

I never understood the whole "save the women and children first" mentallity - I'd prefer that, in the event of a calamity, the most capable save themselves and their own and let natural selection take care or the rest.

While I might agree with this partially... most "calamities" we experience in the modern era are not tests of "fitness".

If, for example, someone pulls out a gun and starts firing randomly into a crowd, how exactly does it benefit natural selection to let him kill whomever he can until he runs out of bullets...

Granted after the first few shots people will have had a chance to react, but the first shot or three have a pretty good chance of killing someone who is "fit".

Personally the only people I'd want to come out of that situation alive would be the ones who selfishly made an effort to take the shooter out.

Other examples would be when an "unfit" person crashes his vehicle into that of a "fit" person, or when an arsonist lights a fire in a house where a "fit" person and his offspring are sleeping. etc...

Had the British merchant fleet followed this rule there would have been a lot less casualties overall - as most of the women and children put in the lifeboats alone would eventually die anyway due to lack of seafaring skills. Had they saved the capable sea men there would have been a lot more folks coming home...

I agree with this almost completely.

However, there is a very rational theory of survival (of the group) that goes along the lines of "one man can make kids with lots of women, so save the women" and another one that goes something like "more kids can fit on a boat".

It is my opinion that the wisest choice in this situation would have been to send women and children along with just enough skilled men to keep them alive and safe.

Given that we are (for a few more generations anyway) mortal fleshy things, one may only attain immortality by one's investment in future generations, that is I would much rather have someone save my wife and child than save themselves, and this basically creates the same contract expressed above in the quotation of the fireman.

It is possible that I am breaking off from the Objectivism as expressed by others, but I really don't give a damn what they might think, they are not my priests and I am not their follower.

I believe that being selfish is a virtue, but most people misunderstand (Claimed Objectivists incluced) that which is truly self serving with that which seems self serving. The problem has it's root in the definition of terms...

For example, people might say it is the self serving greedy person who goes into a bank with a gun and demands money.

I say that is a stupid man.

Objectivists don't steal, they trade, and they produce.

The truly self serving is the person that invests in the bank (assuming the bank in question is likely to "make" money), not only does he stand to profit directly, he also stands to benefit from the things others will do with the loans his bank offers (assuming the bank in question loans money to those likely to "make" money).

"You can't claim us, we live here!"

"Do you have a flag? No flag, no country!"

Eddie Izzard

Had the British merchant fleet followed this rule there would have been a lot less casualties overall - as most of the women and childrem put in the lifeboats alone would eventually die anyway due to lack of seafaring skills. Had they saved the capable sea men there would have been a lot more folks coming home...

I explained to them that I had no need of them, though they clearly needed me, but oddly (for people claiming Objectivism) they offered nothing I desired in trade for my continued attendance.

The others (hell even my "friends") seemed to view it as a sort of club/cult used to gain power through association.

...gee, I can't imagine where they would have gotten THAT impression...

Children get the priority on being rescued because they at least have the chance to grow up to be rational Objectivist money making types.

Where as an Adult on average is likely to be a moocher, or should the adult be a rational, they will have either rationalized why I'm saving the children first, or be capable of rescuing themselves instead of waiting around for someone else to do it for them.

The most incredible thing is that someone can say this and then blithely proclaim that "Objectivism isn't heartless".

One day when I was in college my girlfriend at the time suggested I go to a meeting of the Objectivist club with her.

I discovered that the two other people on campus that I genuinely liked were also members.

I pretty much led the meetings after that first day.

Well for a few sessions anyway until such point it became apparent that most of the membership were of the mindless "I want to be a member of something so I can feel good about myself, but I'm not fucked up enough to be a neo-nazi" sort...

I explained to them that I had no need of them, though they clearly needed me, but oddly (for people claiming Objectivism) they offered nothing I desired in trade for my continued attendance.

The others (hell even my "friends") seemed to view it as a sort of club/cult used to gain power through association.

I'd bet that I would even find needy victim types running the Ayn Rand Institute, if I cared to look. (I don't)

So... anyway with no additional exposition, here comes some more exposition!

*******************************************
In Response to your fireman Scenario:

Assuming I was in good health and able to help (as opposed to being a hindrance to others who were helping, ie: getting hurt and needing to be rescued myself, etc) I would run into a burning building (or similar scenario) without hesitation.

The explanation is simply to quote the fireman in the story himself...

"you would do the same for me."

While perhaps you wouldn't, there are those of us who would, and it is a sort of contract between all rational people, that I will risk my life to save you, because you will risk your life to save me.

You might ask, how I know that the people I'm risking myself for are rational?

Fact is I do not... but I don't know that they are not rational and if I DID know they were nasty collectivist types then I wouldn't save them.

(feel free to call me heartless or something now)

For example if the Communist Party offices were on fire, I'd go buy some marshmallows make smores and laugh.

Actually I wouldn't do that, because there could be kids in there, but I should very much like to.

Children get the priority on being rescued because they at least have the chance to grow up to be rational Objectivist money making types.

Where as an Adult on average is likely to be a moocher, or should the adult be a rational, they will have either rationalized why I'm saving the children first, or be capable of rescuing themselves instead of waiting around for someone else to do it for them.

I would put forward that it is the moocher socialist types who see no reason to risk their skin rescuing someone.

I have never seen a reporter drop their microphones and cameras and run in to save people, I've never seen a bum or beggar getting up off the sidewalk to run in to risk their worthless flesh to save people who most assuredly were their betters.

why? because it is they that are the victim in any scenario. If a bum is sitting in front of a building and it is on fire, he will complain that he has to move. If a reporter has to cover it, they will complain that they have to work. If a politician/lawyer/bureaucrat type had a room booked in a hotel that had a fire he will complain that he has to find a new hotel. etc...

*******************************************
In response to the worker scenario....

While it may serve your purpose to propose the hypothetical that there could be two people exactly equal applying for the same position, in reality, this NEVER happens. There is always something that sets one candidate above the others, even if it is something as "silly" as one person being better dressed, having a better smile, or whatever, I defy you to find two people (even identical twins) that are truly equal.

While you might not like that a hiring decision should be made based on non essential criteria, a decision must be made all the same, and in general people do not consider applicants at all that are not qualified, so pretty much every hiring decision comes down to a character judgement, who do I trust to do the work more.

This judgement may even be made subconsciously, hell it may even be entirely subjective! but it is made all the same!

It may even be unfair! but we Objectivists don't really waste time considering what is "fair" because we know that the guy that didn't get the job, will be able to find another one if he is worthy of it.

In the other scenario where the less qualified person is selected I should think the more qualified person should be glad to not be working for someone with such poor judgement, and while he may have deserved the job, the job clearly did not deserve him.

Given that the assumption at the start is that the more employable more competent individual was the one not hired, it stands to reason that he or she will be able to find another job rather quickly, so we need not pity this individual.

*******************************************
As to the assertion that Objectivism is Heartless...

Objectivism isn't heartless, it is objective.

A heartless man doesn't care that others are suffering and makes no distinction as to whether they deserve it or not.

An Objectivist on the other hand stands against socialism, communism, collectivism and any other -ism that serves to enslave men to the state, where men are forced work and starve as others (who produce nothing) dictate.

Also as an Objectivist I see nothing improper with aiding the poor, but you MUST be careful as to how you go about it.

You DO NOT just hand them the product of your work, you must make them trade for it, or else you in giving them money for nothing steal value from the pocket of every other man.

Many are the times I have approached someone with a sign claiming to need help with an offer to trade them a shower a place to sleep and/or some money in return for some small labor, such as cleaning or yard work, NEVER have they accepted, ergo they deserve to be poor, and there is nothing I can reasonably do to to help them.

Example: Imagine if I gave a homeless beggar a house, a car, plenty of clothing, food, etc for a year. At the end of that year they will have produced nothing, and remain beggars. Even worse given these valuable things they will NOT have cared for them as someone who had earned them, the house I would no longer want, the car probably would no longer even run. The moocher, as opposed to the Objectivist whom "makes" money, actually "destroys" money, that is they consume without producing, when they receive something they use it and give nothing in return, they remove value from the system.

So handing a beggar a dollar, makes every dollar less valuable, and you can see it on a macro scale as the policies of "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke, cause inflation, making each and every person who holds US currency poorer by a factor of the rising rate of inflation.

*******************************************

In closing, I'd like to shock the hell out of you by stating that Jesus was an Objectivist.

Do onto others as you would have done unto you.

~The master of Cud

I read about cases were settlers intentionally gave rugs or other infected items to the natives and I do think some did know, but I don't know how wide spread this practise and knowledge actually was.

Unfortunately I don't remember the website I saw this, but apparently someone tried to find the origin of that story & the only thing they found was some letters between British Army officers near the end of what is known in the US as the French & Indian Wars.

After the French surrendered at Quebec & Montreal some of the Amerindians of the Ohio Valley continued to fight without their French allies & in the letters the officers discussed the possibility of starting a smallpox epidemic among those tribes. There was a smallpox epidemic a bit later, but these were common enough that it could have occurred 'naturally' rather than being due to deliberate action.

I read about cases were settlers intentionally gave rugs or other infected items to the natives and I do think some did know, but I don't know how wide spread this practise and knowledge actually was.

And as for Roarks ''rape'' in the Fountainhead Dominique herself acknowledges that ''she never said the one word which could have saved her'' which would have been ''No!''.
Also the whole proceeding chapter describes her pracicaly begging for it ^o^.

The arson in the book (of which Howard was found innocent >_<) should not be portrayed as a whim which endangered people, it was clearly a premeditated crime.

As for the military, Objectivism advocates self defence be it because someone is attacking you or stealing from you or invading your country surrendering to death in any way equals death to them.
And as for losses I don't think an objectivist army would be so keen on conventional tactics.
Terry Goodkind (a proclaimed objectivist) in his novels (also fiction those insidious buggers) actively said that they would not shy away from fighting dirty, or as they say ''Dead is dead''.

As of 1491 many Amerindian cultures were agricultural & lived settled lives. Most if not all of those in what is now the eastern half of the US did.

When Europeans came they brought diseases which were endemic to Eurasia but unknown in the Americas, & this depopulated many areas. At least in the 1st few centuries the Europeans didn't know enough about the causes of disease to prevent this if they had wanted to, so they can't be blamed for this.

So what white settlers did was a mix of moving into land emptied by disease & warfare pushing out the survivors of the epidemics. I can't regard the former as worthy of blame & the latter might in some cases be totally wrong 7 in others have elements of self defense.