okay. sorry it's kind of long.

I've thought a lot about your post, not because I had to think about my response, but because I found myself re-examining the concept, checking to see if my previous conclusions and philosophies regarding value still held water. Also, figuring out how to clearly express my thoughts on the subject.

>>“This to me wasn't about value at all. I don't believe in intrinsic value, and because I have no way of determining what value she would have to me, I can't use that as my standard.”<

I mentioned this because you said this:

>>Why doesn’t she deserve to be raped?... I mean I can’t around it without thinking that she embodies some kind of inherent or intrinsic value.<<

I was trying to explain that it is possible to get around without thinking she embodies intrinsic value. I don't believe in intrinsic value, plus value is totally subjective. I do recognize that just because she may not have had value to me, doesn't mean she didn't have value to someone. If she has any value at all, it is that given to her by the people in her life, and she to herself, as is the case for all of us. So, maybe she had no one. Maybe she was all alone and not a single soul cared about her...She had no value to anyone at all. Would that make her any more deserving of rape than someone that everyone cares about? Nope. Value has nothing to do with it. Not when we are to view the issue with the objectivity of uninvolved impartial "spectators", which is essentially the role we've been playing so far.

Having said that, your scenario turns the tables. As soon as you are personally involved, values come into play, because all choices have a cost. You make your decisions based on a hierarchy of values. We also have to choose between our instincts and our convictions. Fear is a powerful motivator to abandon principles.

Here's how I determine values, and thereby, hopefully, my actions. I would not risk my life for anyone I didn't know, unless I had alternative motivating factors, i.e. the things I value MOST. So, if I didn't perceive an imminent threat I would try to help. If I was able to do so I would try to call for rescue. I would try to do something. This I would do because I want to be a kind person, and I want to believe that good things happen when you're a good person.

Making a decision to act or flee is about what you value more, and what you would rather pay for your choice. If I felt like the guilt of failing to live up to my own convictions would be something I couldn't live with, I would be more inclined to stay. I would appreciate confirmation that I am more than just empty rhetoric. I know what it feels like to stand a test of fire, and I know how it feels to prove yourself and it's really worth it. Conversely, I have failed myself and someone else because I fell short of my own convictions. That was shameful. I don't like it.

But ultimately, to stick to your guns in the face of danger is foolish. Die for a stranger that I know I can't help, who knew the risk and failed to take caution, who paid too high a price for her carelessness? Just for the sake of rhetorical ideology? That might be a useless, meaningless, and misguided gesture. It would basically just extend the damage done by the original violation. It would be not serve any purpose other than perhaps extend some comfort at her time of death, and I don't know her well enough to know that whatever price I pay, she's worth.

I would hope I would help her. I would certainly give her the blanket...try to make her as comfortable as possible, and then get to where I'm going safe and sound. I don't like how that sounds, but it is what it is. Then again, maybe I'm overestimating how easy it is to walk away from someone in need.