What would be the moral answer to this situation:
A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?
Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
he should sacrifice all of them by not sacrificing any of them. anyone that wants to jump to save the others is free to do so. too bad if they all go down. nature and people who construct elaborate scenarios are a bitch
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I kid of agree with nir. Why does the question assume that the officer must choose someone to die in the first place?
Irish Liberty Forum
Is the officer deemed the owner of the lifeboat?
If so, he has the right to remove anyone he wants from his property. I don't think it's really up to us to say who he should remove. Who he chooses is up to his value judgment.
He may want the pregnant teen to stay if he thinks they'll end up on a deserted island and wants to repopulate.
He may want the nun to stay for his own religious motives.
He may want the poet to stay because of his/her artistry.
He may want the librarian to stay because he's a bibliophile.
Daniel:What would be the moral answer to this [literal lifeboat scenario]
Asking us to decide who ought to be sacrificed is kind of a silly exercise.
Convention dictates that the ship's officer shouldn't have been anywhere near the lifeboat :) of course your mileage may vary...
This situation, however, conveniently dictates that he is on the lifeboat, and that he must be on the lifeboat in order to avoid everyone's death. Further, it seems to stipulate that he is unilaterally in charge of determining who will be sacrificially tossed in to the sea.
The poet and the librarian are pretty much useless in a strict utilitarian assessment. But most people, I presume, would choose jettison the drug dealer despite his physical prowess on account of his unsavory career choice. Whether they could effect this result is another question entirely.
In the real world, I'd say odds are that the elderly nun sacrifices herself.
I want to reiterate though: I believe there is no correct answer to the question, "Who should be sacrificed?"
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
What if they formed a government on the lifeboat. That would solve all their problems. This is obviously an example of market failure.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Le Master:If so, he has the right to remove anyone he wants from his property.
No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw:No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property.
Even at the expense of the owner (and everyone else)?
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
MatthewWilliam: I kid of agree with nir. Why does the question assume that the officer must choose someone to die in the first place?
I didn't formulate the question, but I guessing it's because there would be no other way "sacrifice" one passenger.
Le Master: Is the officer deemed the owner of the lifeboat? ...
Is the officer deemed the owner of the lifeboat? ...
The people who formulate these situations usually wouldn't consider that.
David Z: Daniel:What would be the moral answer to this [literal lifeboat scenario] Asking us to decide who ought to be sacrificed is kind of a silly exercise.
Hey, now! College professor don't impose silly exercises. :D
David Z: ... The poet and the librarian are pretty much useless in a strict utilitarian assessment. But most people, I presume, would choose jettison the drug dealer despite his physical prowess on account of his unsavory career choice. Whether they could effect this result is another question entirely.
... The poet and the librarian are pretty much useless in a strict utilitarian assessment. But most people, I presume, would choose jettison the drug dealer despite his physical prowess on account of his unsavory career choice. Whether they could effect this result is another question entirely.
Personally, I would go for the poet. At least the drug dealer provides a good that people want. :D
Snowflake: What if they formed a government on the lifeboat. That would solve all their problems. This is obviously an example of market failure.
Daniel:Who should the officer sacrifice and why?
The question assumes the officer has the right to choose one. So did everyone on the boat agree to let the officer choose? I will assume they did. If so, and I were the officer, I would have everyone draw straws. Or I would use eny meny miney mo.
Angurse: Spideynw:No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property. Even at the expense of the owner (and everyone else)?
Yes. If it is that bad, he can jump off. If the rest of them are that stupid, to let him die, then that is their problem.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Le Master:If so, he has the right to remove anyone he wants from his property. Spideynw:No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property.There's no such thing as the right to life.
How would you rule on this case if it were brought to you as arbitration, and the officer killed someone without getting consent first? Would you say, "there is no right to life, so, no wrong committed"?
Spideynw: Knight_of_BAAWA: Le Master:If so, he has the right to remove anyone he wants from his property. Spideynw:No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property.There's no such thing as the right to life. In a civilized society, legally speaking, yes there is.
In a civilized society, legally speaking, yes there is.
So wouldn't the officer have the right to life as well, and therefore, be able to sacrifice someone else? If a passenger has the right to life, does that mean he has the right to sacrifice the officer?
Daniel:So wouldn't the officer have the right to life as well, and therefore, be able to sacrifice someone else? If a passenger has the right to life, does that mean he has the right to sacrifice the officer?
Right to life just means that no one has the right to take your life without your consent. Lack of action resulting in death is not the same as killing someone. No one has positive rights. There is no obligation on me to keep you alive. At least, that is what my opinion would be as an arbitrator.
I dont usually like to apply Justice to situations... but if they could make the decision from behind the veil of ignorance I believe the result would be satisfactory.
"Survivor" template: They all are aware of the circumstances (7 people, space for 6) and agree on an anonymous poll (vote) where each member suggests a member to be "voted off". The one with most votes gets thrown out. If everyone gets a single vote, the poll is repeated with everyone suggesting their second "vote off" choice. Repeat until a single member appears with most votes. Seems the fairest way to handle this.
Z.
Spideynw: Daniel:So wouldn't the officer have the right to life as well, and therefore, be able to sacrifice someone else? If a passenger has the right to life, does that mean he has the right to sacrifice the officer? Right to life just means that no one has the right to take your life without your consent. Lack of action resulting in death is not the same as killing someone. No one has positive rights. There is no obligation on me to keep you alive. At least, that is what my opinion would be as an arbitrator.
It's just that "right to life" sounds like a misnomer.
z1235 meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
Spideynw:Yes. If it is that bad, he can jump off. If the rest of them are that stupid, to let him die, then that is their problem.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would he, the owner, jump off (to die) when hes going to die because of other passengers on his boat? And its hardly stupid to let the seventh person die when only six can survive.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap