Lifeboat ethics

T

TeamJones

Member
We were talking about lifeboat ethics today in English, wanted to know what everyone's view on it was.

Scenario: A lifeboat is adrift in the middle of the Northern Atlantic with 50 people in it. The lifeboat has a capacity of 60. There are 100 people in the water. Anyone in the lifeboat will live, anyone outside will freeze to death. If more than 60 people enter the lifeboat, it sinks and everyone freezes.

So, how do you decide who lives? Do you use first come first serve for the final 10 spots? Do you not allow anyone on to preserve the safety factor? Do you apply complete fairness, let everyone on and everyone dies?

I'm a pretty selfish person; I don't let anyone else on. With ten open spots you have a much greater chance of survival should something go wrong than if you have no open spots.

Thoughts? BTW, the original use of lifeboat ethics is http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html.
 
i think the life boat would be swarmed by the people in the water and sunk from all the panic. there would probably be no order. everyone would die
 
Yes, but that's where the ethics question comes in. Is letting the first ten on fair to everyone else, who have just as much of a right to live as those ten?
 
ya its right. the first there get a ride because they were the most capable and it will make your life that much easier havin some strong dude around, not some fat ass whinin ass, do nothin.

thats the way i see it, survival of the fittest ya'mean?

 
i'd give them all a riddle to solve. then the first 10 to solve it get to go on the boat. Survival of the fittest(smartest)
 
id probably just let like 50 people on and then switch with the poeple in the water over and over. unless youd die if you went in the water.....then probably just the babez
 
To make it really survival of the fittest. You have to set up a race to the boat... so that everyone starts an equal distance away. Otherwise it isn't survival of the fittest, it's just who happened to end up in the water closer to the lifeboat.  But I think I would probably try and take all the kids because they have more life ahead of them.
 
that's so strange. I had a conversation like that in English today too except it was a scenerio if you'd shoot people or not. for the lifeboat. . . i'd go with the first come first serve rule. it's only fair.
 
im going to have to say young first just because the older people have lived more like i know it sounds mean but old people like grandmas and grandpas are already close to dying so its almost a waste of a life
 
hahaha

As for people saying survival of the fittest, are you retarded. Physical strength means next to nothing in todays world.
 
let the kids in. they have the longest to live and have lived the least amount of time. plus, you might be able to fit in more than one kid into 1 stop in the boat thus saving more lives
 
This is kind of a paradox. Kind of like "the prisoner's dilemma" (see link below). And falls kind of inline with Freudian psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

No matter what ethical approach you take on this. In this kind of situation, ethics is thrown out the window. Whatever the "right" thing to do is... it won't occur anyways. Its all based on probability. The probability that that amount of people will work cooperatively in such a high stress scenario is highly unlikely. Initially people will use diplomacy in attempt to achieve a solution. But in the end, due to the nature of the life and death scenario, the very few people attempting to solve the problem in a "civilized" manner will be useless. People in the lifeboat and people outside of the lifeboat will form 2 factions. And it will become a simple game of assault and defense. The object: boat, grants those who have it life, and all others without it death.

As the people outside the boat realize that they will soon die if they do not get out of the water, their bodies will begin to release epinephrine which will initiate the "fight or flight" mechanism of the sympathetic nervous system. And they're only real option at this point is to fight for the boat.

The people outside the the boat would most likely not work entirely together considering they're too many for the boat anyways. It would become a complete free-for-all, and in the end everyone would most likely perish.

The people in the boat might be able to survive if they could somehow escape with the aid of a small motor or oars.

in my opinion this whole situation is doomed to fall apart. all ethics aside. I'm sorry that was so long, and it's probably not the input you were looking for. But when i took medical ethics last semester, my professor always said, "ethics can only be applied to low-moderate stress scenarios". Human morals and emotions are something that has evolved at a higher social standing, than basic biological processes.

 
probably the most lean people or younger ones that would taste the best. so i might grab a couple extra for a snack for the road persay. more like drift but whatever
 
it depends. If the people in the water are all scattered out and not in a big herd, then you could probably get 10 people without risk of getting the boat swamped. But if they are all grouped together, forget it. The towering inferno will occur, everyone will fight to get on the boat and probably end up sinking it and killing everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top