- When Falls the Coliseum - https://whenfallsthecoliseum.com -

Why we shouldn’t be in Haiti

I know, I know, I know.  I can already hear the blood curdling cries of “heartless” and “monster”, but I don’t think America now has any reason whatsoever for being in Haiti.  This represents a change from my previous position, immediately following the earthquake, where I was of the opinion that any life-loving individual who was able to help had a moral responsibility to assist.  Let me explain…

 Ayn Rand wrote the following in her essay “The Ethics of Emergencies (1963)”, found in her book The Virtue Of Selfishness [1]:

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help a person is by reference to one’s own rational self interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money, and effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person.  If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger.  (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

A rational man does not forget that lifeis the source of all values and, as such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter), that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him.  This does not mean that he regards human lives as interchangeable with his own.  He recognizes the fact that his own life is the source, not only of all his values, but of his capacity to value.  Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension, a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself.

Now, whether or not you like Ayn Rand or think she was the devil’s mother-in-law, you cannot seriously argue that you know that you would try to rescue the drowning stranger from her illustration.  You may like to say and think that you would, but there is no way you could know if you would dive in until faced with the situation.  Ayn was telling us why we cannot have that certainty: A rational individual, possessed of self-esteem, cannot place just anyone’s life above their own in terms of value.  The closeness of the bond with the other individual is what determines where on the 0% to 100% sliding-scale-of-inherent value they land, and the position an individual holds on that scale determines whether or not you’ll go in after them, with the whole thing being governed by the severity of the situation’s danger.

When the news of the earthquake started coming in, when the pictures started showing up on the TV and internet and we began to see the loss of life and devastation, I felt about the same as every other person on Earth felt: We need to help those people.

Why that reaction?  Two reasons: 1) “We” usually means “Other People”, and 2) “Help” usually means “Give some money to those other people.”  Giving to the Red Cross and other charities, while at times a dubious activity where you never know what the money will be spent on, is at least a safe, relatively easy method of satisfying the impulse to aid people in an emergency.  Here in America, being as fortunate as we are to have the lives of relative luxury we have, we can usually afford charity, and we give a lot to charity, mainly because there are many moral, ethical people here who truly value life.

(For a more in-depth analysis of the US-Haiti relationship as it relates to virtue and values, check out Steve Chapman’s article [2] over at reason.com [3].)

I was all for an extension of relatively-safe charity to the people of Haiti, as was the entire country.  But no longer.

It began this weekend, when I caught this bit in a story by the Washington Post [4]:

But there was rising frustration — and scattered looting — among the desperate Haitian population. On Friday, the World Food Program had to suspend distribution of high-energy biscuits near the destroyed national palace when a crowd revolted, complaining that they were not getting better food.

Well…  My first reaction was “Ingrates”.  That put a pretty sour taste in my mouth.  Beggars can’t be choosers, and revolting because you’re getting MREs and not T-Bone steaks when there isn’t a lick of food in your whole damn city kind of pissed me off a bit.  I didn’t get a T-Bone steak last night either!  Don’t see me revolting because of it…

But today’s headlines and opening paragraphs sealed the deal for me.

About 30 Americans were hurt Monday during a massive relief operation in the Haitian capital in what was described as a “mass casualty event,” US officials said. breitbart.com [5]

WASHINGTON – Some incidents of violence in Haiti have hindered rescue workers trying to help earthquake victims, a top official leading the U.S. government’s relief efforts said Sunday. FoxNews.com [6]

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Some 2,200 U.S. Marines arrived off the shore of this crumbled capital city on Monday, their mission to protect a huge relief operation from marauding looters as hundreds of thousands of earthquake survivors wait desperately for food and medical care. MSNBC.com [7]

Violence, looting, attacking Americans who have volunteered to come and give you aid?  Hell to the naw!  I’m sorry, but the earthquake didn’t hit America, there is no need for it to claim American lives.  If this is the thanks we’re getting, fine, screw ’em.  Let them starve, die because of a lack of medical care and infection, get pulverized by drug lords and the like.  I have not one iota of pity for those who strike at the people coming to help them!

If they’re going to go on the war path because aid isn’t getting there fast enough, let them stew in their own misery for a bit with no aid and no promise of aid in the future.  Let them see how bad it really can get.  It’s what they deserve.

To head back to Ayn Rand’s example of the drowning man:  One of the first things they teach lifeguards is that you never swim right out to a drowning individual and try to pull them to safety.  The drowning person, scared out of their mind and incapable of rational thought, will kill you to try to stay above water.  They’ll stand on you, try to push up off of you, hold you under even if it means you both die, because they want to survive.  It’s our natural instinct.  The lifeguard must instead wait for them to quit struggling, wait till they slip below the waves, then grab them and pull them to shore.

This follows Ayn Rand’s model of ethics in an emergency to an absolute “T”.  Haiti is a drowning nation.  It is fighting, kicking, individuals are fighting not only to survive, but to advance themselves.  This is not the proper climate for us to be delivering aid.  As we bring in aid, the various gangs and warlords (which are already there) will be taking it and selling it or holding it back from the people.  It’s happened to US relief efforts all over the world.  We’re risking the lives of American doctors, soldiers, etc for no reason but to give petty tyrants power and an easy life, and that is not worth it to me.

Let the nation restore its own order, then we can move in to help.