The Lifeboat
The Lifeboat
“Right,” said Roger, the self-appointed captain of the lifeboat. “There are 12 of us on this vessel, which is great, because it can hold up to 20. And we have plenty of rations to last until someone comes to get us, which won’t be any longer than 24 hours. So, I think that means we can safely allow ourselves an extra chocolate biscuit and a shot of rum each. Any objections?”
“Much as I’d doubtless enjoy the exta biscuit,” said Mr. Mates, “shouldn’t our main priority right now be to get the boat over there and pick up the poor drowning woman who has been shouting at us for the last half hour?” A few people looked down into the hull of the boat, embarrassed, while others shook their heads in disbelief.
“I thought we had agreed,” said Roger. “It’s not our fault she’s drowning, and if we pick her up, we wont’t be able to enjoy our extra rations. Why should we disrupt our cosy set-up here?” There were grunts of agreement.
“Because we could save her, and if we don’t she’ll die. Isn’t that reason enough?”
“Life’s tough,” replied Roger. “If she dies, it is not because we killed her. Anyone for a digestive?”
Tags:
obviously not
Isn't it stated some where that to knowable and willingly let someone die is just as bad as to murder the person them selfs, and the one person wouldn't make that big of a difference to the boat. If Roger really wanted why wouldn't he kick two other passengers off so everyone could have double the rations. and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Greed and Action
Ayn Rand would say they shouldn't bother with the girl, because this is a question of self vs. society. It's a question of greed and morals.
I disagree of Ayn Rand (of course), and situations like these are one of the main reasons I despise her philosophy so much, because I believe that there needs to be a balance between self interest and compassion/empathy for others. In this case I think the possibility for saving a human beings life with no cost to yourself except eating a few less biscuits is a most reasonable sacrifice to be asked to make, or required to make by ethical standards.
I also think all three of the ethical philosophies we studied will point in this direction.
1. Utilitarianism: The most good for the most number of people. Even though many people will be forced to eat a little less, the happiness they'd feel by getting those biscuits is far outweighed by saving even one life.
2. Categorical Imperatives: First of all I'd like to address 'human life as an end not a means'. It's pretty straight forward, human life should be preserved, so they should save this women. In addition, 'act as if what you do will become a universal principal'. If they didn't save her, and no one ever saved anyone, or made any personal sacrifices for other people we would live in a chaotic, dog eats dog type of world, where as if they do save her and show compassion and 'community spirit' so to speak, those positive qualities will become universal principles and shape the world for the better.
3. Virtue Ethics: Once again, I believe it's blatantly obvious what would be considered honourable. Choosing not to save someone, in order to eat more rations is greedy, which is rarely, if ever, honoured in society. On the other hand self-sacrifice of any level, compassion, and saving lives are rarely not seen in a positive light.
Last of all I would like to state, as I'm sure we've all heard in anti-bullying talks/workshops/classes/whatever that people who are a part of a situation and don't do something about it are partly responsible. No action is a choice as surely as action is and by choosing that route you are as much a part of a situation, and thus responsible for the outcome, then if you had chosen to act. They have the ability to save this women with hardly any cost to themselves, so they should feel obligated to help her. By standing there and letting her drown they are not necessarily murdering her (this could be argued either way) but they are surely condemning her to death.
Hey look! I'm responding!
Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to think about the three philosophers haha!
~Sorcha
Everyone seems in agreement.
Saving the girl is more important than having extra rations. But what if there were just enough rations for the people in the boat? Would this change any answers? Or what if they weren't to be rescued for several days?
~Sorcha
Nothing really should be able to change
Really in those kinds of situation the bodies go into a form and degree of shock or panic so they most likely will not eat as much as in the comfort of their home or aboard a ship. and really it said that the help will be there in hours so there's not that much need for that much food I think that nothing has changed but the ridiculousness of ones values if they still cant decide or pick the food!
no change in opinion here
Then they could all be a little hungry, but all alive. It's worth suffering a little to save another human being. Even in the situations you propose they'd all have some food, and none of them would suffer much. What I said about the different ethical philosophies still is true. Compassion is more virtuous than greed, saving her will do more good then not saving her, and saving human life should be the rule.
Duh.
Then eat the girl.
individual rating importances
What is more important a simple and easily replaced and ignored whim or a human life? more and more people now adays are choosing the mattiral possesions over basic necessities of the people surrounding them. this is a perfect example people want what they deem at that moment more important or convenient then to do what they know is either right or proper in that situation. in these cases the people will ignore the situation or down play it and shift the blame else where convinitly tends to sound not wrong or illogical I personally think that people like that need a crash course in being in that sisuation with a person acting as they had.
I would rather save someones
From my prospective life is more important than *extra* food.
It's easy enought to half
It's easy enought to half rations, so if they go a day without a full sandwhich and have half insteat they will still surive. One more woman certainly would not be a problem if they have the rations. Why should they celebrate with Whisky over killing a woman.
It may just be my concience but I say save her!
One Unimportant Detail...
They have enough full rations for all of them plus some. She would only eat some of their extra rations, and no one would go hungry.
Monter...
That is just crule and uncalled for. The men should save her for the fact of saving another in order for her to return to the people that care for her, they are doing the same with thier 'extra ration' so why cant they save her and give the ration to someone who actually NEEDS it.
This question is retorical... and I think that Roger just needs to swallow his pride and do something right instead of thinking of just himself.
I would go save her. My
I would go save her. My morals tell me to save her. The greatest good for the greatest number of people. I personally don't need an extra ration and if help is coming in the next 24 hours, I could tough it out. Also the boat can hold 20 people so there is lots room. It is just selfish what they are doing. Lastly, I couldn't go to sleep at night knowing that I could have saved someone and didn't, while I listened to them take their breath of life.
Human nature
Humans have always been greedy creatures so this does not surprise me. I think the fact that they are awear they can help/save her and choose not to and that is what makes them bad people. They might as well just stab her in the back. I personally think they should help her since its the right thing to do.
That act is the thing that
That act is the thing that pisses me of the most about human ignorance!
I even will put this one under America as my low water mark!!!
Why would I rescue someone or help someone crying??
I have no words just dissapointing and a lil bit less hope in humanity
I refer this also to that horrible incident of suicide that just happened... Everyone could have helped her. I only saw her once and it teared my soul apart that I didnt notice it
Completely Disregarding the Issue...
I don't think anyone who didn't know Taylor well can offer an opinion about what happened. Even some of her best friends were taken completely by surprise. I could tell you about all the times when people DID help her, but this isn't the place for discussing that.
Coming from someone who probably knew her better than anyone else, I just want to say that a lot of what I've heard about her over the last week isn't true. I don't understand why people are saying stuff - this isn't the time for rumours or speculation. She had serious problems that a lot of people did try to help her with, myself included. Sometimes it just isn't enough.
Sorry to be a downer, but I needed to put that out there.
Stefan for once we are
Stefan for once we are completely agreed. ;)
This is a ruthless question.
This is a ruthless question. To think that someone would not save a life is a monsterous thought. It doesn't hurt the people at all. Not saving her does. No question, save the woman.
Save her. The extra ration
Save her. The extra ration would be great but once you get home, after getting saved within 24 hours, you can have as many rations as you please. It is morally unacceptable to be perfectly able to save a person, without hurting anyone else, and not doing it. There are no institutions that would leave the lady behind.
Seems like an odd question.
The boat can hold 20 people
The boat can hold 20 people and there are only 12. There are enough rassions to last awhile, including extra for enjoyment. Mr.Mates can reason that he will give up his extra rassions (and anyone else who feels the same way) to support the woman on the boat.
Roger's comment of "if she dies, it is not because we killed her." is false. I would argue that ignoring their capability of saving the girl because they want their "cozy" environment is a form of murder. Im sure their is some Good samaritan act or duty to care that this situation might fall under.
How many African's did you
How many African's did you kill (through inaction) yesterday?
Dear Frank and Ashley,
I feel a mix of agreeance, outrage and guilt due to this post, but I think some logical arguments came out of it.
First of all I agree that people are killed by inaction in all sorts of ways. When we buy products from sweatshops and support unethical businesses (as discussed earlier in Nest Cafe, I know) it could even be said we are acting to support inhumane treatment of people, destruction of the environment etc. Sometimes I feel really guilty about all that stuff in fact, because I really do believe it's a big issue. that there's lots of big issues.
One of the challenges is attitude: even if it isn't a lot of effort to do things a little differently, it feels like a lot of work to change habits and practices, and it costs more and blah blah blah. Plus there are so many causes to support and issues to resolve: endagered animals, the forests are shrinking, the rich are so rich, the poor are so poor, diseases, unethical treatment of animals, sweatshops, welfare, drug and mental health problems, all sorts of prejudice and racism, crime, theft, poverty, diseases, viruses, corruption, education...I could go on and on but I don't want to because it's depressing and overwhelming and it doesn't feel like theres anything I can do about any of it so why even bother trying.
What difference can I really make?
This is how I feel, and I think a lot of people feel the same way quite often(which just makes the problems worse and seemingly more unsolvable) but it's not what I truly believe. I think we need to work towards dealing with and fixing all sorts of problems on all sorts of topics, and that changing some simple habits might go a long way if we all start working there, you know, one step at a time.
I also think that all of our problems are connected, and all our actions are connected, so it's nearly impossible to walk out the door without contributing negatively in some way (especially if you're shoping) by actions that weren't even inteneded to be negative or simple inaction. Especially since not everyone is aware of all the issues there are, and some people aren't aware of any of them. I find it quite hard to condemn someone who had no intentions of doing anything wrong, or any knowledge they were doing anything wrong. If there's no grip on the possible consequences it's hard to make choices. (In this situation they all know that the women will drown if they don't help, so I'd say they know what the consequences are in this case, they just don't think they're a big deal)
So, what situations should we bet ethically obligated to take a stand in? When should we have to do something about the state of the earth, the way other people are treated etc. When is it our duty to preserve human life?
In theory I believe the right thing to do is to prevent as much harm as you can, to fix as much you can, and to save and enrich human life as much as you can without causing yourself harm or making unreasonable sacrifices (even though making extreme sacrifices can be very honourable, it shouldn't be required in my opinion).
In real life though, understanding the dilemmas people are faced with, and the overwhelming quantity of causes and program, I think whether your obligated to act or not should rely on proximity to the situation and the net difference you'll make by acting. Or, if you will, I believe the too are linked. You are more obligated to fix something that;s going wrong right in front of your eyes, that no one else can fix, then something going on across the world that you are only linked to because you bought something from a company that bought something from another company who's contractor(I don't know the proper title) at one factory was sneakily using child labour. Like degrees of separation, the more you are separated from the issue the less responsibility you hold.
In this specific situation they are the second degree away, on the scale I just made up. They did not push her in the water, or try and cause her to drown, but they also aren't acting to save a human life no one else is able to save. Saving a human life is a big deal. She's right there. It would be so easy to help her. Saving her requires so little effort that it is horrifying to think some people would not take action to save her (let alone that it took half an hour before anyone even raised the issue.)
I still don't think it's right for people to support companies with unethical practices but I can understand why people do. The problem is not close to them in the same way, the people are less relateable, and they are further removed from the damage their actions are causing. Ignorance is rarely a good argument, but in this case I think it's a part of the equation. There are no bad intentions, and there may not even be understanding or knowledge of the lives being affected. I'm not sure who should be doing the education, but there should be education so people can be held more accountable for their actions. I stand by the belief that someone can't be expected to make good decisions unless they are informed.