When dealing with the notions of ethics and moral behavior, one often confronts the issue of choice concerning a certain situation which demands immediate and resolute actions for its resolution. Being ethical or moral is largely viewed as being socially open and lending a helping hand to those in need whenever they might need it and irrespective of one’s willingness or unwillingness to do so. Various charitable organizations strive, providing aid to those suffering various diseases, domestic abuse or starving in underdeveloped regions of the world. The situations when people require help are multiple and one of the major issues considered by ethics is the case when help is needed in emergency conditions. A tough position is taken on this point by a Russian-American philosopher and novelist, developer of the objectivism movement Ayn Rand. In her essay “The Ethics of Emergencies” (Rand 39-45) she stands on a firm yet controversial ground which has attracted both followers and opponents and which nevertheless has a rational point in it.
Rand starts her contemplations by making several psychologically aggressive assertions and claiming that acting mercifully, as altruism would demand, places one into a very derogatory position, leading to “lack of self-esteem, lack of respect for others, a nightmare view of existence, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality” (39). Helping the other would, in Rand’s opinion, humiliate both the one who helps — as he consciously renounces his own benefit, — and the one who is helped — as he is viewed then as one incapable of fighting off the challenges of life. By helping other people, one acknowledges the hopelessness of existence, recognizing it in a pessimistic way as a world full of danger, mischief and misery, where there is no hope of ever surviving on one’s own, thus raising the necessity of getting help from everyone and giving it to everyone without regard to the risks the helping person undertakes. Thus, by Rand, the whole sphere of ethics is neglected, as she sees the ultimate aim of a moral person in achieving own happiness without demanding assistance from others and without conducting unnecessary interference with others’ affairs (41).
Rand categorizes situations which possibly require help into two groups: the “normal” situations like poverty, neurosis, etc, and the emergency ones (43). She emphasizes that all people live in the same world and the negative circumstances are equal for all. Therefore, everybody should stand up against them in the same way without claiming help from the rest. Further, Rand focuses on cases when help may be needed, dividing emergencies into two categories: the ones where friends or dearest ones are involved, and the ones involving total strangers. An altruist would definitely help anyone, even a mere stranger, without considering the possible negative consequences for himself. However, according to Rand, “it is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power” (43). The best way to handle an emergency without prejudice to one’s own values and to those of the needy is seen in administering primary aid so that the situation ceases to be critical and then wisely stepping back allowing for a person’s own worthy solution of the problem. Thus both the helper and the one who is helped benefit, as their personal dignity and values are preserved intact.
In spite of all the criticism Rand’s ideas and the way of their presentation may have caused, and however cruel they might seem to clement hearts, few people in the world are capable of granting aid truly and sincerely in any situation without prejudicing their own interests and without regretting that help to a certain extent. With rare exceptions, people run risks and go to all lengths in order to help a very restricted circle of relatives or friends whose well-being determines the well-being of the person him/herself. Sacrificing one’s life in order to save the life of the neighbor is only viewed as possible when further existence of full value cannot be imagined without the person who is at risk. Verily, when one witnesses an emergency, one’s reaction might range from bluntly following the self-preservation instinct and retreating from the drama or plunging blindly into it in an outburst of heroism without considering the consequences for him/herself. Wouldn’t it be wiser and more efficient, if in such cases aftereffects are considered? Sacrificing everything for a stranger might not turn out right both for the stranger and for the one who gives that sacrifice. If a “saver” cannot swim, he/she wastes both his life and the life of the drowning person, so in that situation it would be much more reasonable to undertake calm action and call the lifeguards rather than plunging oneself into water. Rand is absolutely right saying that help must be provided when it is in one’s power. A powerless helper can render nothing; he/she will only waste the effort which could have been otherwise directed at something attainable bringing more overall happiness to the world.
One cannot but agree with the idea that help must be given only to those who really need it and cannot do without assistance. It is a matter of personal prestige and ambition to reach success and prosperity by own means. Emergency situations test the ability of a person to survive, his/her stamina and self-command needed to stand up and continue the fight for existence. Being assisted in every step not only deprives a person of self-esteem, but also dramatically lowers the chances for personal growth and self-development which would otherwise provide a way to more success for the ones who struggle. Force-majeure cases should be viewed as an exam for personal strengths and weaknesses and the way one handles them serve as an indicator of personal success and accomplishment on the thorny path of life.
Works Cited
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Penguin Group USA, Incorporate, 1964.