Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat

[Hranat]

There is no good or evil in the real world. Being a good person doesn't actually help you. It only helps others. This way, the only benefits are if someone sees you perform your good act, so you can act the hero and everything, or you feel better yourself. We are raised to believe we must do good, but that is an illusion. It doesn't really help, that's what society wants us to believe. I say: Tough luck, my fellow lifeboaters, die.
I won't gain anything by dying, and it's easily to cover up as an accident that the others didn't make it. On the other hand, by throwing the other survivors overboard I gain survival, and their valuable possessions.
Call me evil if you like, I don't really care. I'm simply not indoctrinated.

[Tom_Violence]

Wow, this one really got me to thinking.

Throw an unconscious person over.

Next

Seriously though, this is so restricted that it doesn't really make for a good thought experiment. They way you've presented it gives three strict options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.

3 is clearly not an option.
2 is daft, as you've no way of being confident that either of the others would survive, especially without a conscious person to take care of them.
1 is your only option.

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario. Self-sacrifice in this instance cannot be rationally justified, as pointed out above. Where's the ethical dilemma? There isn't one really - the only question is would you be able to do what has to be done?

[SweetLikeLemons]

It's odd how the decision is so much harder when you are the one who actually has to throw them out. If, say, they are loading the lifeboats and you and one unconcious person are already in the boat and you know one more person will sink it, it would be much easier to say no when they bring over that second unconscious person than to personally shove them over the side.
If I am going to be brutally honest with myself, what would probably happen is I would dither until it was possibly too late and then I might throw someone out of the boat. I would like to believe I would make the "right" decision based on my morals, and sacrifice myself, but I know that isn't very likely. Failing that, I would like to believe that I would make the logical decision and throw one of the unconscious people out. Hopefully if I could see the danger clearly, the adrenaline would help me do it. But there is a chance I would get caught between my morals and my logic and doom us all. Go me!

[LCR]

Well, you can justify either course of action.

If you think, the ends justify the means, throw one of them over board.
If you think the ends never justify the means, go jump yourself.
If you think such a question is too hard for a human being to answer, stay passive.

All these possibilites can be morally justified.

Now, what would I do.
In general, I think that the ends never justify the means, but it's also right to say that this general rule is not always applicable on small-scale scenarios like this one.
I don't like the idea of me being governed by instincts, but I have to say that I would probably throw one of them out of the boat.

[Siwenna]

I would throw one of the other people over.

As for whether it's the right thing to do, I think so. You might be killing someone with the potential to cure cancer or something, but you can't know that. If I knew both people well and thought that they had a good deal more potential then me, then it might be different, but I'm not sure. My self-preservation insticts are pretty strong (in other words, I'm selfish.)

[Ranis]

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario.

The point isn't about discussing the scenario. The point behind the discussion is to talk about the choice. The choice and the reasons behind making them-not making this scenario more illogical than it already is, and not about making it more complicated to avoid the question or making the actual choice.

So yes, you're right, there isn't much discussion about the scenario. Because the scenario is essentially pointless.

[LCR]

Wow, this one really got me to thinking.

Throw an unconscious person over.

Next

Seriously though, this is so restricted that it doesn't really make for a good thought experiment. They way you've presented it gives three strict options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.

3 is clearly not an option.
2 is daft, as you've no way of being confident that either of the others would survive, especially without a conscious person to take care of them.
1 is your only option.

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario. Self-sacrifice in this instance cannot be rationally justified, as pointed out above. Where's the ethical dilemma? There isn't one really - the only question is would you be able to do what has to be done?

Um, I can rationally justify self-sacrifice, as far as morals are rational.
1. You're a human being, the difference between you and an animal is that you're not completely driven by your instincts but much rather have a choice. You're not willing to give this difference up, even if this means your death.
2. Who are you to put your right to live over the others rights to live? You can't, therefore you choose to kill yourself in order to save the rest.
3. Who are you to judge who's going to live and who's not? Depending on your world view, you might see this as God's duty or arrive at 2.


As you can see, there is not just one answer, that can be right. It depends on how you think.

[Tom_Violence]

Um, I can rationally justify self-sacrifice, as far as morals are rational.
1. You're a human being, the difference between you and an animal is that you're not completely driven by your instincts but much rather have a choice. You're not willing to give this difference up, even if this means your death.
2. Who are you to put your right to live over the others rights to live? You can't, therefore you choose to kill yourself in order to save the rest.
3. Who are you to judge who's going to live and who's not? Depending on your world view, you might see this as God's duty or arrive at 2.


As you can see, there is not just one answer, that can be right. It depends on how you think.

I'm guessing this was answers to the three choices, not an single chain of reasoning.

#1 still seems like the only choice to me.

Your reason for #2 seems silly. "I have no right to choose between me (a very much alive person) or someone else (a maybe nearly-dead person) so the only thing to do is kill myself so make things easier!!" Really?

As for #3, I can't see the rationale there either. If God/fate/etc. wanted you dead you wouldn't be there to make the decision.

The point isn't about discussing the scenario. The point behind the discussion is to talk about the choice. The choice and the reasons behind making them-not making this scenario more illogical than it already is, and not about making it more complicated to avoid the question or making the actual choice.

So yes, you're right, there isn't much discussion about the scenario. Because the scenario is essentially pointless.

I agree that the choice is not merely limited by the scenario, but on one's ethical approach to said scenario. All I'm saying is that given of the 3 very strict outcomes only 1 seems plausible as the other 2 appear irrational.

[LCR]

No, that wasn't a single chain of reasoning, those were three different ways to justify self-sacrifice.

#2 seems silly? So, the unconcious man is less of human than you are?

#3 No, but you could believe that you God wants you dead rather than the other two. If you don't believe in God, you could just as well go with #2, believing that you have no right to interfere with another person's right to live.

[ForzaFiori]

throw an unconscious person overboard. If something ever comes down to me or someone else, I'm gonna chose me.

[Tom_Violence]

No, that wasn't a single chain of reasoning, those were three different ways to justify self-sacrifice.

#2 seems silly? So, the unconcious man is less of human than you are?

#3 No, but you could believe that you God wants you dead rather than the other two. If you don't believe in God, you could just as well go with #2, believing that you have no right to interfere with another person's right to live.

Not less of a human. We're both human, presumably. Just one of us has a much higher chance of survival (~100% compared to ~?%).

God wanting you dead? That sounds on par with being a loon, and believing you ought to die, so you might as well throw yourself in. Hardly the most tenuable, logical position. Can you actually talk me through that, without sounding like a crazy?

[LCR]

Not less of a human. We're both human, presumably. Just one of us has a much higher chance of survival (~100% compared to ~?%).

God wanting you dead? That sounds on par with being a loon, and believing you ought to die, so you might as well throw yourself in. Hardly the most tenuable, logical position. Can you actually talk me through that, without sounding like a crazy?

Who says you have a higher chance of survival? The OP said "unconscious" not "as good as dead". And still, even if you'd have a higher chance of survival, you're both worth exactly the same and you both have the same rights. You can't just apply logic on his right to live and then throw him overboard, because it was the "logical" thing to do.

And a lot of religious people (all of them loons ...?) believe that God made a plan for them. How do they know it is His plan to throw someone overboard to save their life? It could equally be their life, God demands.

[Tom_Violence]

Who says you have a higher chance of survival? The OP said "unconscious" not "as good as dead". And still, even if you'd have a higher chance of survival, you're both worth exactly the same and you both have the same rights. You can't just apply logic on his right to live and then throw him overboard, because it was the "logical" thing to do.

And a lot of religious people (all of them loons ...?) believe that God made a plan for them. How do they know it is His plan to throw someone overboard to save their life? It could equally be their life, God demands.

I say they have a higher chance of survival. If I had to rate victims of a boat sinking in order of chances of staying alive, it would go something like this, from best to worst:

Alive, conscious, walking about, etc..
Alive, unconscious, cannot be woken.
Dead.

2 unconscious people in a boat in the middle of the ocean don't seem to stand a very good chance to me. And it seems a completely irrational chain of thought to look at two unconscious people in a boat and think "Well, they've got a better chance of it than me, over I go!". Of course everyone's life is worth the same, and of course everyone has the same rights. But in a situation where it is impossible to maintain everyone's rights then rights should be not be considered, as they cancel out and you hit a stalemate. If everyone's right to live was adhered to the boat would sink and everyone would die. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Also, why can't someone apply logic to a situation like this in order to arrive at a conclusion? Because its insensitive? It certainly can't be because it doesn't work, because it does.

The 'maybe God says...' or 'Fate decrees...' line doesn't really get anywhere, as it can be used in favour of any course of action, since whatever happens is 'the right one'. If everything really was down to Fate then I may as well stay in bed all day as I'll get what's coming to me regardless.

[pingcode20]

I'd love to say I would choose option 1 or 2, but that would be kidding myself.

Yes, I value my life above the two others. Yes, I have a sense of ethics.

And more likely than not, I'd end up fretting about it and trying to save both that I would get everyone on the boat killed anyway.

Unfortunately, as a matter of realistic evaluation, I would not be able to agree with the 'right' answer, nor can I agree with the 'self sacrifice' answer - I would end up in the 'stupid' answer segment; trying so hard like so many others to save everyone, and in the end saving no-one.

[LCR]

I say they have a higher chance of survival. If I had to rate victims of a boat sinking in order of chances of staying alive, it would go something like this, from best to worst:

Alive, conscious, walking about, etc..
Alive, unconscious, cannot be woken.
Dead.

2 unconscious people in a boat in the middle of the ocean don't seem to stand a very good chance to me. And it seems a completely irrational chain of thought to look at two unconscious people in a boat and think "Well, they've got a better chance of it than me, over I go!". Of course everyone's life is worth the same, and of course everyone has the same rights. But in a situation where it is impossible to maintain everyone's rights then rights should be not be considered, as they cancel out and you hit a stalemate. If everyone's right to live was adhered to the boat would sink and everyone would die. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Also, why can't someone apply logic to a situation like this in order to arrive at a conclusion? Because its insensitive? It certainly can't be because it doesn't work, because it does.

The 'maybe God says...' or 'Fate decrees...' line doesn't really get anywhere, as it can be used in favour of any course of action, since whatever happens is 'the right one'. If everything really was down to Fate then I may as well stay in bed all day as I'll get what's coming to me regardless.

Of course it's possible to maintain everybody's rights. Self-sacrifice. You, too, have the right to live, but you can choose not to. The others can't.
And if you presume that the two unconscious persons are dead anyway, the whole scenario does not make any sense.

On logic and rationality:
I've found an interesting example on applying logic and rationality in "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini.
We presume that you act rationally, where ever it is possible. You know, that some things, like love, are not rational, but neither are they irrational, so you're fine with them. It is, for example, not rational to prefer strawberrys over apples, but not irrational. It would be irrational to buy apples if they both cost the same.
Now to the point: Somebody gives you a logical and rational argument on why it would make sense to detonate a bomb in, say, a mall (It's not about the argument, so don't discuss that). You can't see the flaw in his argument.
Would you go with his plan or would you feel bad because you might have missed the flaw in his conclusion? You don't have too much time to decide.


What you may find in this thought experiment, is a higher ranking instance than logic or reason. Morals could be that instance. Something you just fundamentally know, without explanation.

[Tom_Violence]

Of course it's possible to maintain everybody's rights. Self-sacrifice. You, too, have the right to live, but you can choose not to. The others can't.
And if you presume that the two unconscious persons are dead anyway, the whole scenario does not make any sense.

I can see that, yeah, but the curious thing here is that it seems their right to life trumps mine simply because I can do something about it. An interesting thing has occured to me actually, with regards to situations specifically like this. If by keeping one of the unconscious people in the boat will result in you dying, then that person is in fact, through no fault of their own, killing you. Thus, throwing them overboard is not murder, but self defense. Its an argument that comes up occasionally when considering abortions in which the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. Controversial, indeed. But with some merit?

On logic and rationality:
I've found an interesting example on applying logic and rationality in "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini.
We presume that you act rationally, where ever it is possible. You know, that some things, like love, are not rational, but neither are they irrational, so you're fine with them. It is, for example, not rational to prefer strawberrys over apples, but not irrational. It would be irrational to buy apples if they both cost the same.
Now to the point: Somebody gives you a logical and rational argument on why it would make sense to detonate a bomb in, say, a mall (It's not about the argument, so don't discuss that). You can't see the flaw in his argument.
Would you go with his plan or would you feel bad because you might have missed the flaw in his conclusion? You don't have too much time to decide.

That's an interesting idea. I think in that situation I would be inclined to not help, principly because I know that arguments can be tricky things. Especially if I wasn't given time to analyse it. I mean, exploding a mall is something that I know to be wrong most of the time for very logical reasons. The chances of someone coming up with a scenario in which it is good to explode the mall are slim (not impossible, just unlikely). Thus, I would refer to the more likely answer - that blowing up the mall is bad, and I've missread the argument.

What you may find in this thought experiment, is a higher ranking instance than logic or reason. Morals could be that instance. Something you just fundamentally know, without explanation.

Sadly, something without explanation is essentially useless, especially terms of helping you work anything out. Interestingly enough, morality would be factored in to the above chain of reasoning - I know that most of the time blowing up a mall is bad because of the suffering it would cause, therefore for the convincing-argument to succeed it would have to make me believe that there wasn't anything immoral about this particular mall exploding. And that's pretty unlikely, to I would decline.

[LCR]

I know it is really hard to imagine that but it doesn't really matter what kind of reason there is for blowing up a mall. It's only purpose is to show that logic can be flawed, even if you don't see the flaw. Don't you ever encounter instances where you know something would be logical, yet you feel the other way?
Let me quote David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions".

I can see that, yeah, but the curious thing here is that it seems their right to life trumps mine simply because I can do something about it. An interesting thing has occured to me actually, with regards to situations specifically like this. If by keeping one of the unconscious people in the boat will result in you dying, then that person is in fact, through no fault of their own, killing you. Thus, throwing them overboard is not murder, but self defense. Its an argument that comes up occasionally when considering abortions in which the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. Controversial, indeed. But with some merit?

Not really. Their lifes do not trump yours, but -I admit that- you are the only one who can actually do something. The other possibility, following this train of thought, would be to stay in the boat, by which all three would be equally dead.

[Tom_Violence]

I know it is really hard to imagine that but it doesn't really matter what kind of reason there is for blowing up a mall. It's only purpose is to show that logic can be flawed, even if you don't see the flaw. Don't you ever encounter instances where you know something would be logical, yet you feel the other way?
Let me quote David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions".

I know, and I am agreeing with you there. I know the reason for the bombing isn't the point, and I've certainly seen my fair share of dodgy logic over the years. What I am saying is that gut reaction that I feel would probably need to be supported by something, at least. And in this instance it would be the very low probability of bombing being the right course. I'd be dissatisfied if someone's sole reason for not acting was simply 'it feels a bit off, to me'. I suppose perhaps Hume and I diverge at that point.

[LCR]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

[OverdrivePrime]

These either-or choices are pretty silly for analyzing a situation with such a flimsy set-up. I'll do my best, however.

I'm going to assume that the seas are calm, because otherwise leaving two unconscious people unattended on a life boat in stormy seas is condemning both of them to death.

Being proficient in wilderness first-aid, I'll assess the situation. If both unconscious people are in a strong condition to survive with time (strong vitals, no severe burning or rapid blood loss, limbs and head all in place, etc...), I'd leave the two of them on the boat and take my chances at sea. I can tread water in calm conditions for quite a while, more when I inflate my jeans and use them as a temporary floatation device to give myself a break. Maybe I'll get lucky and find some flotsam to rest on while waiting for the Coasties to show up.
I don't know that whoever's off the boat is going to die, and I've got tremendous faith in my abilities.

I write with 95% certainty that even if I knew that I would die (some extraplanar jackass shows me the future or something), I'd still jump out of the boat, knowing that otherwise I'd have to spend the rest of my life reminding myself that someone else died when I had the opportunity to save them. I'd have trouble living a sane life with that over my head.

If the seas are pretty bad or one of them has low vitals, then I've got a much tougher choice. I'd take care of the most robust, most survivable of the two, and sorrowfully pitch the other overboard, after rummaging through their pockets for knives, lighters, granola bars, anything useful for survival. Gotta do my part where I can to help evolution along for our species. I'd then do everything in my power to keep the boat in survivable condition and protect my passenger. If the two are in equal condition, but different genders, I'd save the female because it's been hard-wired into me that women are more valuable to the species than men. (Perhaps some sort of primeval 'getting rid of potential competition' thing.) When I get back to land, I'll check myself into counseling for a few months and visit the family of the person I dumped overboard.

[Ranis]

These either-or choices are pretty silly for analyzing a situation with such a flimsy set-up. I'll do my best, however.

<snip>

All I can say is thanks for over-analyzing things that were not part of the original intent nor purpose of this thread.

[Tom_Violence]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

Absolutely. I personally agreed very much with Hume's 'moral sense' theory when I first came across it, and still do to a very large extent. Thing is I found it only of any real use in explaining why someone acts morally, and not so good on whether or not they did the right thing, nor for why it would be the right thing. But then Hume has often been considered quite skeptical and borderline nihilist, so I guess perhaps those issues never came up.

[LCR]

For "applied" or political philosophy, I've found Max Weber to be most interesting. I don't see the point in nihilism (I know I should, since I'm German ... *Lebowski .... cough*, so I'm drawn to Weber's rather pragmatic approach.

[Jayabalard]

All I can say is thanks for over-analyzing things that were not part of the original intent nor purpose of this thread.

All I can say is to try to come up with a less meaningless scenario next time, preferably one with less false assumptions. That'll give you a better chance of people answering and staying within the given parameters.

[Triggerhappy938]

Kill one, eat him for nutrition, toss the other one overboard if he wakes up and asks questions. Moral? No. Logical? Aye.

[averagejoe]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

[LCR]

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

That's my bad, actually. In German, philosophy is part of the Geisteswissenschaften, Wissenschaften meaning sciences. I've just checked with a dictionary and found the correct translation to be "the humanities".

[Aramil Liadon]

I'd say that OverdrivePrime has expressed my feelings on the situation fairly well.

In response to an earlier comment about how being 'good' only makes sense if there are those who will recognize it and reward you, I would say that that's not what being 'good' is. 'Good' is acting selflessly to aid others, with no specific reason other than to help them.
That makes me sound like a communist, doesn't it.

[averagejoe]

That's my bad, actually. In German, philosophy is part of the Geisteswissenschaften, Wissenschaften meaning sciences. I've just checked with a dictionary and found the correct translation to be "the humanities".

Drat, and I was hoping for a rousing debate on the topic.

'Good' is acting selflessly to aid others, with no specific reason other than to help them.

Is aiding yourself not also 'good?' Altruism is all well and good, but at the same time you have the same right to live as anyone else. If it is wrong to harm a person, then, by the same reasoning, is it not wrong to harm oneself?

[Tom_Violence]

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

If only it was, then maybe people wouldn't keep pretending that there are no rules or structure to it.