Today we discussed Moral Philosophy. Moral Philosophy basically examines the rightness and wrongness of our behavior. Below is a Moral Dilemma that I would like you to answer. Determine which is best coure of action to take and explain why.
Hypothetical #1: You are stranded with thirty people on a lifeboat that is intended to hold only seven. No one can paddle this heavy boat and it is definitely going to sink, drowning everyone inside it. It occurs to you that you can save some of the people in the lifeboat by asking all but the strongest rowers to go overboard. Do you think it would be morally permissible to save some people by asking others to go overboard?
Yes it is morally permissible to save some people by asking others to go overboard, only if I had no other option leftover. This scenario makes it seem like I am the one in charge of making the decisions and honestly, 30 people on one life boat that's originally made for 7, seems unlikely. This could happen maybe if there are children involved.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, if I do not make a decision, then all 30 people would die. Why am I going to let people die when it can be prevented? In this situation, my morals would tell me to worry about the lives that I can save instead of letting everyone die. I would feel terrible and not be happy after telling people to jump overboard but 7 people will live. Who knows? Maybe there is someone among the 23 people overboard who can swim.
If I were placed in this scenario, I believe that it would be morally permissible to save some people by asking others to go overboard if and only if this was the only alternative I could resort to. Amongst the 30 people on the lifeboat there may be young children aboard. If I know that I have the opportunity to prevent the death of seven of the people, one being a child I would take advantage and do what I can to save them. As well on the lifeboat out of the 30 people there may be some who know how to swim and could possibly survive. In reality no one deserves to die however, if it can be prevented to a certain extent instead of having everyone die, I'd rather know that at least seven would definitely survive and perhaps the few others who have the advantage of knowing how to swim.
ReplyDeleteI would only feel that this is morally permissible if all the people willingly decided that they would go overboard in order for us to live. I would only find it fair and reasonable if it was with their own will and belief. If I were on the boat and I was not a strong rower but I knew some people could survive if some of us fell overboard, then I would agree. At least some people would survive. However, if even one person does not want to do this, then I believe it wouldn't be morally permissible to throw him overboard unwillingly. It depends on the willingness of others and who is willing to sacrifice for their fellow people.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note this is kind of similar to Stephen King's "The Mist" -- pretty brutal ending
ReplyDeleteIn this scenario I believe it is only morally permissible to save some people by asking other people to go overboard if those who are asked to go overboard agree to this or volunteer. I believe that every life is sacred and therefore we cannot diminish a few lives to save the whole, unless it is absolute necessary and those who are in fact giving up their lives have made a choice and are not forced. If I were on this boat would I choose to go overboard? It would all depend on who I am on the boat with. It makes more sense for the weak to make a sacrifice for all others to survive but they have to be willing, if not it wouldn’t be fair or moral to the whole.
ReplyDeleteThis dilemma reminds me of my debate in public speaking. The resolution stated whether it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many people. In this case, it is reversed because you are potentially risking the lives of 23 people so 7 others could live. I believe everyone should be given a choice if they rather sacrifice their lives to safe the lives of others. It is logical to have 7 live out of the 30 than to have all 30 die. However, I don't think only the strongest rowers should go in the boat. In terms of weight sinking the boat, if there are children present, the weight of 5 young kids can be equivalent to one of the strong rowers; adding the amount of lives saved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in this case it should be morally permissible to ask other people to get off the boat to save the lives of others. Although I think so, I think it should be voluntary and not every stronger person should be asked to leave, I believe that anyone who volunteers to leave should leave because then it is more fair to all of the people. If they wish to sacrifice themselves for the good of others, but if they do not want to, they should not be forced to.
ReplyDeleteSo, I asked a good friend of mine who goes to a different school what she thought and I thought her opinion was very interesting and that I'd share it with you so this is it:
ReplyDeleteI believe that morally it is better to save some people by asking the rest to go overboard. What's the point in letting everyone die simply because the boat wasn't able to hold a large sum of people? Especially if they're capable then they probably have more of a chance to also survive the voyage that they'd have to take in order to even think of finding land.
Then again it could also effect those seven people's psyche afterwards; Even if they were saved or not. Because one way or another they still have left people to die and it could seriously screw with their minds.
In my opinion I believe that it would be morally permissible to save some people by asking others to go overboard. In a situation like this it would be a matter of life and death and even though the whole 30 people won't be able to be saved 7 is better then none. I think that the people that should be saved shouldn't only be the strongest but the people who volunteer and most importantly the youngest. In every situation if their are kids involved they should automatically be saved.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why there are 30 people on a 7 man boat. The idea that I would have to ask people to go overboard, would not even come to mind if I had to deal with this in real life. Now since this is a pretty ridiculous situation, I think it is only fair that we all suffer this equally. If you want to give your life up for another, that's great, but I would never ask someone else to give up their own life. The end does not justify the means. Would it be morally permissible? If your intent is to bring about a greater good, then maybe. If your intent is for your actions to be free of taint, then it is not. Since I am the latter, it is not morally permissible. The idea that maybe seven people will live if I throw the rest overboard does not appeal to me. People will answer this question thinking of everyone on the boat as strangers. But what if the people on the boat were your family? Should your family go overboard to save 7 strong people? This also sounds like Social Darwinism, where the weak are eliminated for the strong to prevail; which is something I really don't like. Either way, my answer is that it's everyone or no one.
ReplyDeleteI like how Ishrat and I are on the same page.
DeleteIf I was in thsituation, I think it would be permissible to only be able to save some people. Only I would probably do it the other way around to tr to save everybody. The stronger people would be able to hold onto the boat and paddle it to safety. I think the people who I ask to go overboard would understand that if they want to live they are the only hope, unless they're all selfish.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Excuse my typing, I'm typing on an iPad
ReplyDeleteMoral values are truly tested when tossed into extreme events. Events that make us choose difficult choices often the ones that include life and death situations truly show our character and how powerful our moral values are.
ReplyDeleteLike most of the responses given already I believe it is morally permissible to save some people by asking others to go overboard. But first everyone must come to the REALIZATION that there will people dead, there are going to be someone dead and there not a thing you can do about. Once you have reached that REALIZATION you can move forward onto proper decision making. Based on the circumstances I personally think it would be UNETHICAL to not ask people to go overboard.
Taking the hypothetical as is without any added information, I would say no it is not justified. While logistically and mathematically it seems like the most obvious choice, but from a moral Standpoint it is not. You cannot reduce life to a numbers game as that attempts to quantify the worth of a human life. Humans cannot be judged on a scale dependent solely on numbers. No one would sacrifice the life of a child to save 100 murderers.
ReplyDeleteWhile in the end you are saving more lives by choosing to throw some people overboard, in the end you are setting a dangerous precedent and diminishing the value of human life by reducing it to something that you deem is quantifiable. If this vita scenario acts as a microcosm of society, then it could be said that it would be justified to kill millions of people in order to save billions if the situation arises where someone feels it would be beneficial.
I believe that saving some people would be morally permissible in the event that we sacrifice others. Think of it this way: people are going to drown to death regardless. Why have everyone, including myself drown to death when there could be some lives saved. The way I see it is this: Say we were the last thirty people on the planet in general. If we had all drowned to death, then the human race would be sacrificed. If some lives were saved, then re-population would be in order. I know I went to the extreme when trying to state my own view on it, but I wanted to be clear that in this situation I would sacrifice the lives of a few to save others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to be honest and say that if I was in this situation I would like to be one of those people in the boat that gets to live (it’s just human nature), and this scenario kind of reminds me of LOST. As solace I'd remember everyone who was left behind so that, in a way, they're alive.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if everyone could come out of this alive, but only 7 out of 30 can survive in this situation.
There are two sides to this.
I agree with those who said (like Iktider and Jasmine) it should be the choice of the people to sacrifice themselves, but then I also agree (with Anil) that if people are left behind the value of human life is being diminished and can indeed be a microcosm to an even larger issue of life and death.
Who decides the worth of the people that get to live?
One may say they’re a doctor or a CIA agent or a famous golfer, but their title means nothing because in the end they are human. They are flawed creatures that are more likely to serve their own interests. The bigger they are the harder they fall.
A person should be judged on the quality of their character and actions, and if they make mistakes and show genuine remorse and make an effort to be a better person and atone for what they've done, they deserve forgiveness.
What I’d like to know is how 30 people got in a lifeboat that can only support 7 of them in the first place.
What is this? Titanic? The circumstances are very vague.
How are these 30 people deciding in this small boat who lives and who dies when their collective weight would have already capsized the boat? Do they know each other? If they’re stranded, where do they intend to go? Does anyone have anything useful? If they don’t know where they’re going what’s the point of saving certain individuals? How are we sure that they all can’t swim? Are there any life vests? Where are they? Can a group leave and come back for more? Are they in shark infested water? Are they near an island?
What is going on here? There are too many x factors to consider before making a decision about what to do.
Evan said something quite profound, “Moral values are truly tested when tossed into extreme events. Events that make us choose difficult choices often the ones that include life and death situations truly show our character and how powerful our moral values are.”
This is quite true.
But in a life or death situation these 30 people will want to live. They’re going to argue. They’re going to fight. Even if a person has strong morals, that innate desire to live and thrive remains nestled within the subconscious of their human mind.
To answer this simply without all the sass I think everyone should either die together or all be saved.
No, it is not permissible to save some and not all unless 23 people are somehow willing to sacrifice themselves for the other 7.
I think it would be morally permissible to let the rest go overboard. It would be better to save the lives of seven people then let all thirty people die. Although some people could make the case that you are letting the other twenty three die, it would be better to save some lives then to let everyone die. You have to think about the greater good and what you have to do to have the best chance for survival. Therefore, I believe that t would be a wiser option to save seven people than to let all thirty people die.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ishrat on this all the way. We've all established that the concept of Social Darwinism is very true but when it is applied to morality, it often leads to bad decisions such as slavery. Its not the right of a human to decide how or when another human is going to die. Unless exactly 23 people are willing to sacrifice their lives for seven other people, it is not morally permissible.
ReplyDeletePlus, they should all suffer for their stupidity. Why would you fit 30 people on a boat that only fits seven in the first place? They did this to themselves.
My personal belief is that it is morally permissable to risk the lives of the few to save the lives of the many. Eventhough in this sitution more peoples lives are being risked to save a few, but then agian if those few lives can be saved and if their lives are not saved, everyone will drown anyways. It is alright to tell the strong paddlers to get off and swim back to shore because weaker people have a better chance in the boat then swimming, while strong swimmers have a possibility of reaching land.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in this case it should be morally permissible to ask other people to get off the boat to save the lives of others. I believe that every life is important and therefore we cannot considered a few lives to save the whole, unless it is absolute necessary. However , I don't think only the strongest rowers should go in the boat. The weight would cause the sinking of the boat, if there are children present, the weight of 5 young kids can be equal to one of the strong chance adding the amount of lives saved.
ReplyDelete