Although Ayn Rand constructs persuasive points for the ethics of emergencies, the central principle of morality that states to follow one’s own ranking of values is flawed and therefore his argument for emergencies must be rejected. Rand considers objectivism to be the truth because even though it can be hard to justify that selfishness could be morally right, she supports her stance by stating it is every person’s responsibility to care for their own life. If people do not care for their own life, and lets their lives fall into chaos, then it is nobody’s fault but their own, and no one is morally obligated to feel bad for them. Rand then attempts to explain the main issue of explaining how to deal with circumstances where certainly any …show more content…
An example of theft being justifiable is if someone needs a piece of property to end an emergency situation but the property is someone else’s property. It would be morally wrong if the person did not steal the property.
One heinous scenario that is justifiable is if there is an emergency situation like the occurrence of a natural disaster. It is morally right to not help because it could lead to an emergency situation. It affects everyone, and wasn 't a foreseeable event to avoid. Sending help to the natural disaster victims is completely different from the examples that Rand gave. Any truly moral person would help a natural disaster victim no matter the circumstance.
In conclusion, Rand’s argument for the ethics of emergencies is not specific enough to be morally acceptable because it allows for the possibility of heinous acts and scenarios. The argument does not answer the question of which circumstances because the support Rand uses such as people being stranded on a boat are insufficient because it does not consider the possibility of acts or occurrences that are considered horrible situations for any moral human