Good for you.

I used to ride the commuter train to work. I decided that, because I would react in a way that would put myself at risk, I should stop riding the train. I've been driving in for about 8 years now.

It does, unfortunately.

We of course don't have a lot of love for "altruism" around here.

It is not rational to put one's own life at risk to help a complete stranger generally speaking. There are circumstances where it would be though - principally where some deeper value is at stake than the proximate risk to one's life. In the situation described I don't see that this is the case. Now if it was a violent attack by government goons or if one's own life was in danger anyway then it might be rational to intervene directly.

I'm with you 100%, TD.
This is a lethal situation with a determined attacker.
Unless you're packing or trained you have no business wading into that.

Now, if it's your wife or child that's another matter. Of course you'll risk your life for them - lay it down if need be - but not for a stranger.
(Pretty sure this is the 'official' OBJ opinion, too. The Virtue of Selfishness addresses this.)

Of course, if you know what you're doing, that's a different story. Then it's up to your own judgment about how manageable the situation is. Bruce Lee isn't facing the same situation as Joe Guy from accounting.

And yes, taking nothing away from the folks on the plane, but they knew they were dead unless they fought. Not the same situation at all.

One last thing - if you're not afraid of a 4 inch knife - you need to learn more about knives. Try asking the dead man on the floor.

That story is a testimonial for the therapeutic effect of a concealed carry permit.

How about three or four fellow passengers come at this idiot from 4 sides and confuse him. Just watch animal planet video to see how effective this is !

I would have assessed just what I could to to stop the killing without being seriously hurt, and enlisted the help of anyone else to accomplish this. Objects like handbags, coats, and such can be used as foils

Well I am stupid and I am also 6'4 and 220 lbs. For some idiotic reason when confronted with a situation like this I have a bad habit of jumping in and trying to stop the violence. I know I shouldn't but I always have.

I like this analysis and suggestion of a silent pact. You would have urged the able-bodied people to act with a look.

".....socially-needed remediation...."

Agree with your post, Jan, especially the above......excellent.......+ 10

I would intervene. As was said in the article, after the murder the thug robbed the other passengers. Something that surprises me not at all.

I refuse to be a passive victim. I am not altruistic, and consider it one of the greatest evils. I value my own life far more than some random thug. The odds of my being on the train empty handed are non-existent, and there is always something at hand. Improvised weapons may not be pretty, but they can be effective, and I don't fancy going against a knife with empty hands. If nothing else, a belt can be a bit of an equalizer.

In which case you sound too altruistic and do not accept Obj.ist morality. Note that I (as Obj.ism) am saying here that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to take some risk to save another.

I disagree

That's true. But certain professions have a greater risk of death than others. Those who volunteer have to be aware of this and factor it into their decision. While I may get angry at the situation, that doesn't mean I also get irrational. Of course I would need to evaluate the situation. But as described, an 18 year old punk with a knife? What a bunch of train riding weenies.

I imagine these DC metro type trains no longer have the cord that you can pull to stop the train?

This is primarily another story of the right to self defense having been taken away. Concealed carry, even a BIGGER knife - "Now, That's a Knife!" I think if I were a DC resident (forbid!), I would routinely carry a taser, a blackjack, ANYTHING to take control of a situation. That is what an objectivist would do.

It is impossible to say what one would do. We train for various things, and training speeds up the though process when something happens, but until it's in front of you; who knows? I would like to think I would do something. It's easy enough to over power and disarm a guy with a box cutter. Like he needs to be distracted, so finger nails to the eyes or fist to the windpipe gives him something to think about besides Ali Akbar. It is in that moment when he is vulnerable. But you have to be close to work that, and you probably won't get the chance belted into a seat. So, who knows what we (I) would do. I do know this about myself, I don't usually sit around and say "What are we going to do?" In life, business, and sport I have found it better to take action, adjust, then act appropriately again.

There are many kinds of strength.

I am 5'7"...and I look like the archetypal, invisible, 'little brown woman'. You would not look twice at me if you passed me in the street - I could be anybody.

I have also done martial arts for >50 years. I would have been in that fight in an instant. I would have done my best to tear the knifeman's arm off, stick his own knife in his own eye, break his head, or perform some other type of socially-needed remediation for his personality.

I have pointed up a lot of responses on this thread. Bravo to the folks who would have acted! For those of you who said that you would have regarded it as philosophically correct not to have acted in defense of the victim, please be aware that if that is the type of society you laud and would construct from your philosophy: I will not be any part of it. That is not a world in which I would live.

My (late) mother, at 80 years of age and in ill health, would have tottered up to that fight and beat the attacker to death with a loaf of French bread. My father would have crawled off his death bed to tackle the knifeman around the ankles.

There are many kinds of strength.

Jan

I put it that the "heroic nature described as "selfless" was indeed NOT selfless in any way shape or form.

"This is essentially the opposite of the spirit of United Flight 93—the heroic selflessness that prompted a group of courageous passengers on 9/11 to attack their hijackers, .."

Under similar circumstances, my own self interest would dictate that attack is the best form of action to survive. while I may not succeed, and others might live, the point is for my OWN sake, I would attack knowing the certainty of not attacking is death.

This in a city that makes it almost impossible to carry a concealed weapon.

The author never faced the wrong end of a knife in a situation like this.

No one volunteers for the military to be killed. They join to fight for freedom with buddies you can trust in situations you control. If you could control the situation then you are probably ex military or police or at least NFL I've been there and the test is the ability to command the situation and that means getting allies. Can you fight through a knife wound or would you just cry? If you could not do that then take your boiling blood and cool it down to a rational level. Its the ability to think rationally that gets good outcomes.

This makes my blood boil. Ask yourself, why does a person volunteer for the military, and why do we applaud him for doing it? There are times when defending others is tantamount to defending yourself. Yes, there is a risk, but look at the punk making a pass at all the others on the train car who fall into line like sheep. I am not a sheep nor am I a tree. I am a man and I will act like one.