Should you help a man who's dying in front of you?

An Objectivist will immediately try to assess the context to know what to do: Is this my friend? Then of course I would take on significant risk and expense to save him. My spouse? No doubt, I could easily risk everything to save her! Someone who is an utter stranger? Well, given the absence of any specific knowledge of vice, I would still immediately jump in at some risk to myself: I recognize the gigantic value of living in a society with others who in fact enrich my life in myriad indirect ways as they pursue theirs (yay, humans!). Besides, I naturally empathize with anyone who falls victim to an accident that isn't their fault, and it is eminently practical to foster a culture where people are benevolent and will (non-sacrificially) lend a hand in an emergency. In contrast, if it were Hitler drowning in front of me, maybe I'd look for an anvil to offer him.

An important idea in Objectivism is that values are not intrinsic, existing apart from any valuer and any standard of value. You can see this yourself in how we don't just say "X is good," period, or "Y is bad," period -- rather, we say X is good for this, or Y is bad for that (sure, often the for-whatever is implicit, but it is nonetheless there). This applies to people as much as anything else, which is why the virtue of justice is so important: criminals are bad for us, friends are good for us, and recognizing the difference is a matter of life and death. Ultimately, it is the relationship to our lives that gives something value-significance, making it something we can meaningfully evaluate in the first place.

It depends on the nature of the man, the nature of the two hours, and the nature of the 200 dollars.

If those specific two hours are terribly important to me, in that if I lost them I'd lose a crucial opportunity to improve my life (say I'd miss a business meeting which meant the future of my career), then that would weigh against saving the man.

If those 200 dollars are my last 200 dollars, and I need them in order to eat for the next week while searching for a job, then that would weigh against saving the man.

Since it is stipulated he is a man I do not know, I cannot weigh his identity as distinct from any other man. I must only presume he is an average man who might or might not appreciate me saving his life. Perhaps I could make a new friend. Perhaps he'd pay me back for my money or my time. Perhaps he would not.

On the positive side, depending on who I am, perhaps spending those 2 hours and 200 dollars to save a man's life would make me feel proud, not just for helping, but for having the means to help. That feeling might be worth my money and time if I am rich enough.

The basic principle is, would helping the man be a sacrifice to me? Would I end up better off, or worse off, for saving him? Depending on my situation, and who I am, it could go either way.

Regardless, though, given the non-trivial cost to me in saving him, it certainly should not be legally obligatory that I do so.

I answered this question in a recent edition of my Rationally Selfish Webcast.  An audio recording of my response is available as a podcast here: NoodleCast #62: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast. The discussion of this question runs from 47:23 to 1:00:20. 

My basic view is that we have no moral obligation to help others simply in virtue of their need. However, a person who would refuse to offer assistance in case of an emergency -- when to do so would not be a sacrifice -- displays frightening and dangerous ignorance of the value of other people.

In the absence of any knowledge about the man I would save him. Men in general have the potential to be a value to me and are generally a value to society. To me, that potential is worth far more than 2 hours of my time and $200.00

What are the chances that you will be in a situation whereby a man is dying in front of you. We do not live in lifeboat situations. If life on earth was nothing but emergency man would not be able to survive.