This morning, while eating breakfast and reading whatever was sitting on the table, I saw a sheet of paper titled: "Moral Dilemmas." I found this thing interesting. Anyway, here is one of the dilemmas...
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's descision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captian rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Anyway, it asks about if you were on the jury at his trial. I pose another question, what would you have done in the captain's situation? To what extent did you agree with his actions? I can see logic in both sides of the argument. But there is also a second level to the dilemma: If you were going to throw people overboard, would you throw the weaker people off? Hmmm. Thought provoking.
Personally, I would have let the whole ship of 30 drown before I saw 23 people killed. But would that be the right choice. Would that be ethical? Clearly, not very utilitarian, but I still think it is right. I am willing to hear opposing opinions, as well as complimenting ones, whatever.
8 comments:
This is a complimentary... I mean complementing comment.
If I was the captain, I wouldn't have been able to throw people overboard. The most I would've done would be ask if anyone wanted to willingly sacrifice themselves, which I very highly doubt would be a large amount, if any at all.
If I was a passenger... My fear would double, and they were throwing off the weakest I'd pretend to be strong, however one pretends to be strong.
This is like my blog from a while ago!
Like I chose then, in the instance of the train tracks, I would pull the lever. This is like that. But with bigger numbers. So I would probably 'pull the lever', or chuck people overboard. Also, to be fair, if somebody else could steer the boat, and i was int he weakest, i'd let myself be taken off. But it wouldn't happen because i'm Hercules.
Why do you write: not very utilitarian? Do you consider yourself one? Or that you should be one?
End post. The Captain.
I don't consider myself utilitarian, no. I just noted that I wasn't being very utilitarian, that's all.
Also, with the train situation, and the doctor situation. This one is like, in between them both, and hence, is harder to decide whether to "pull the lever"/"kill the healthy man".
If you didn't understand what I was talking about then. Visit Ben's blog, and find his post on philosophy.
http://my-everest.blogspot.com
It's called 'The Wrongness of Killing' for anyone looking.
If I was in the jury, I'd let him go free on the basis that he actually didn't hurt anyone, and that whatever he chose, he could've killed people, the whole 'moral dilemma' issue.
And on the boat... if the boat was full of strangers, I'd do whatever it takes to save myself.
I would be drawn to do as the captian did, and sacrific some to what was an unoviodable death for the chance to save others.If i was in the jury i would also let him go without conviction.
The post Ben made about the train, people and the lever is the same ssort of thing. But the one about the one patient vs five and the surgeon is different in where the moral dilema lies.
I would have done what the captain did, and if on the jury i would probablyt let him go wihtout conviction. Just had a thought is a captain not supposed to go down with his ship like the captain from Titanic.
Also in regard to the questions from bens blog i think the train on is asking the same moral question but I feel the surgeon one is different in where the dilemma lies according to my sense of ethics.
Yes. I think all these scenarios (this + Ben's ones) are all the same, yet I think the one about the surgeon is somehow completely different, although followihng the same structure. Bizzarehead.
Post a Comment