Survivalist Ethics

Is there such a thing as "survivalist ethics?" News Friday of a possible terrorist attack being blunted by some passengers on a high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris brings this question to the fore. It is not a new question at all. One place in which we ask it is in the Andes plane crash where passengers engaged in cannibalism in order to survive. Existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard spoke of "the teleological suspension of the ethical" in validating the choice of the Old Testament patriarch Abraham in being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac because God asked Him to do so. The question comes up all of the time in acts of warfare and terrorism where it is said by some that the situation makes it alright to kill another person, especially in self-defense. The just war theory speaks of it. But to what extent can we speak of "survivalist ethics?"

Chris Norman, a British national, came to the aid of three Americans who thwarted an attack on Friday, August 21.But was their act a highly ethical act, or merely one motivated by survival? At a press conference on Saturday Chris Norman said, "Rapid reasoning" prompted him to jump in and help. "My thought was, 'OK, I'm probably going to die anyway, so let's go.' I'd rather die being active, trying to get him down, than simply sit in the corner and be shot."

So is this a highly ethical or moral act or not? It seems to me that this man was motivated by the part of the brain which just reacts. So is there anything ethical in this kind of reptilian response? Yet he speaks of "rapid reasoning" and "if he is going to die anyway, why not try to be active?" So it seems like this heroic person did use some deeper logical reasoning to make the decision to react. Perhaps then we could say that he made a decision to do more than to "save his own skin."

In fact, no person exists as an individual when that person does "rapid reasoning" to decide whether to do something. At that point you may think of his wife, children, grandchildren-- whether he will ever see them again. At the same time he is confronted by other human beings who are making the decision to respond. Each individual's situation is differently, but ultimately their response not only effects them but other people. So in this case you may say their "situational ethical" response is survivalist not only for themselves but for others.

This also may be the case of what Kierkegaard calls "the teleological suspension of the ethical." In the case of Chris Norman he may not hear God calling him to do something, but humanity. There may also be in at least one of the four responders a response to a deeply ingrained relational ethics related to God. So although each of their own "rapid reasoning" may appear to be instantaneous and unrelated to their ethical stances it may still be motivated by deeply held religious commitments.

Is there such a thing as "survivalist ethics?" Certainly there is, and this latest heroic act may in fact be a product of a higher form of it. Regardless, observers like ourselves may well grow by witnessing an action which saved human lives and likely thrwarted a perceived enemy of civilized humanity.