Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
You have just escaped a sinking ship, and are in a lifeboat with a maximum persons cargo of two. There are two unconscious people with you, thus exceeding the maximum the lifeboat will carry by one. The lifeboat will sink if you do not act quickly. The unconscious people are your gender, body type, and disposition.
You cannot wake the unconscious people, nor hang off the side of the boat, or do anything whatsoever to save everyone on board the lifeboat. If someone is to leave the craft, they will die.
You now have three options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.
What would you do?
Is that the right thing to do?
What is the right thing to do?
((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
I'd chuck the one who looked least likely to live overboard (by taking in to account wounds, responsiveness in general, etc). I have morals, but when it comes down to me or a stranger, I'm sorry...Me. :P
But then, I'd also eat a traveling companion. If trapped on a mountain or something, and I was starving and my companion was dead...Yah, I'd eat them. Now, I wouldn't kill someone for food, but if they are already dead then they probably don't care. ;)
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
A classic moral dilemma.
Most likely, I would be among those who would not sacrifice myself in the name of saving the others. It could all turn out to be in vain; with no one conscious in the raft, their survival chances are less than yours are if they are left to their own devices. They could dehydrate. They could, themselves, die of injury. The raft could overturn.
Self-preservation is one of our strongest instincts. It's what keeps most of us from taking needless risks, though it seems to be a rarer commodity in this day and age. While it may be morally reprehensible to kill another, I cannot conceive risking all three lives to appease my conscience.
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ranis
((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))
I hate these ultimatums. Real life doesn't work that way with choice A, B, or C being your only options. In such a hypothetical scenario I would probably cause the lifeboat to sink attempting to save all three of us. I refuse to accept the set of rules.
First, I don't know the future. I wouldn't just throw someone off to ensure I would survive, given a chance that anything could happen up until the boat actually sinks. Second, ethically either jumping overboard or throwing someone overboard is proactive and condemning someone to die. I'd do what I could to find another way, I don't play the game.
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
Agreed, I would go with option C, do something else, but given that actual choice, it seems that if I jump overboard, then two unconsious people in the middle of the sea won't stand a chance, so that'd be the same as all three of us dying.
saying that, If I were to overanalyse it, we would probably need food, so if I could keep an arm, then all the better.... what?
oh, and of course check his pockets for loose change first.
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
Mate you should at least consider chucking the amp overboard...
What? I need all this stuff.
Re: Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat
Charity... you evil uncaring bastard.
"throw my amp overboard" indeed....