Moral debate

notfarnow · 06-05-2006, 08:52 PM

So this year I decided to work away at finishing my university degree by taking courses part time. At first, I was going to take ourses relevant to my job, but then my employer reneged on a commitment to reimburse some of the costs. So, I decided to take whatever the hell I wanted. I'm currently taking a summer course: Philosophy 2003 Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. I need some electives, and I thought this would be a good distraction for the summer.

Anyway, for the final essay, I've chosen the following topic. I would be very interested to read what you wise folks think:

A ship with a crew of seventeen and sixty-five passengers struck an iceberg, and began to sink rapidly. About twice as many crew and passengers got into the lifeboat than it was designed to hold. The remaining passengers were forced to stay with the sinking ship and soon perished. The life-boat was presumed to be in good condition, but had a small leak. That night a heavy rain fell and despite desperate bailing the whole boat was at great risk of sinking. Assuming a mix of young and old persons of various ages, weights, mental capacities and dispositions what procedure, if any, should be followed to preserve life.

notfarnow · 06-05-2006, 08:54 PM

To begin, I think any crew should be kicked out of the lifeboat. Their job is to guarantee the safety of the passengers.

M.D. Holloway · 06-05-2006, 09:04 PM

Unfortunitly, the crew would have the most experience of helping the others survive. The boat has a leak - it will eventually sink regardless of who the passengers are. The best bet is to prolong the eventual. That being said, one of the crew members would know the nearest shipping lanes. So, take the young, strong members of the ratf and put them outside to kick towrds that direction. It would lighten the load and provide propulsion.

dtw · 06-05-2006, 09:05 PM

If Tabs was in the boat he'd kick all the members of ............................ out.

TerryH · TerryH's Garage

Perhaps two experienced crew stay to save the boat, rest walk the plank. If passengers are to go, volunteers first, then vote off others.

M.D. Holloway · 06-05-2006, 09:22 PM

Unless somebody dies, I don't see anybody giving up the ghost by choice. I also do not think anyone is in the position to decide who stays and who goes. Even a vote doesn't cut it. Theyu would cast out a member against their will is the same as murder. Aloowing someone to leave the boat means aiding and abetting suicide - both are moraly wrong.

even if the boat goes down, they could all group together rather than be reduced in numbers. Besides, if the boat sinks they have maybe 48 hours before they die of thirst or go insane from drinking seawater.

Victor · 06-05-2006, 09:25 PM

(Assuming they are all good Christians), are we ruling out divine intervention?

Victor · 06-05-2006, 09:26 PM

Come to think of it, they would never have struck the iceberg in the first place unless of course God planned it that way in which case they should all drown.

TerryH · TerryH's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
Unless somebody dies, I don't see anybody giving up the ghost by choice. I also do not think anyone is in the position to decide who stays and who goes. Even a vote doesn't cut it. Theyu would cast out a member against their will is the same as murder. Aloowing someone to leave the boat means aiding and abetting suicide - both are moraly wrong.

even if the boat goes down, they could all group together rather than be reduced in numbers. Besides, if the boat sinks they have maybe 48 hours before they die of thirst or go insane from drinking seawater.

You would not volunteer to die to save your wife and/or children? There are worse things then "giving up the ghost".

Single men first, then married men, finally married men with family on the boat. We don't know how many of each catagory, but this order makes sense to me. If it came down to women, same order.

I'm imagining the voting order...

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

who do we eat?

RoninLB · 06-05-2006, 09:59 PM

The majority should kill the four fattest people asap. As soon as they bloat and float tie them to the lifeboat to keep it afloat.

dtw · 06-05-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nostatic
who do we eat?

I've got a gammy leg, I'm...done for. You chaps, you better eat me.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
The majority should kill the four fattest people asap. As soon as they bloat and float tie them to the lifeboat to keep it afloat.

I thought you were just going to kill them on principle...

Hugh R · 06-05-2006, 10:10 PM

Lifeboat ethics, the strong (in reality) willl throw the weak off of the boat.

M.D. Holloway · 06-05-2006, 10:15 PM

On paper maybe but in real life there is no way.

TerryH · TerryH's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh R
Lifeboat ethics, the strong (in reality) willl throw the weak off of the boat.

This would hold true if the raft was full of wildebeests, however some would have trouble throwing women and children to their deaths.

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-05-2006, 10:23 PM

notfarnow · 06-05-2006, 10:25 PM

I was thinking that if you volunteer to "walk the plank", you should be ble to guarantee the saftey of at least one person.

notfarnow · 06-05-2006, 10:27 PM

Do you guys think crewmembers have as much right to be on the liferaft as passengers?

TerryH · TerryH's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by notfarnow
Do you guys think crewmembers have as much right to be on the liferaft as passengers?

Passengers have the right of safe passage. The crew assumes risk as part of their job. A crewman piloted the ship into the iceberg even if he swears the iceberg jumped into his path. The crew is to provide enough life boats. This entire scenario is based on the lack of safety measures and the inadequacy of the crew. The crew has become the lowest priority. The crew is shark bait.