The Overcrowded Lifeboat,,, by _ShAnE_StArK_ 2016/01/13 17:14
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and
more than 30 survivors were crowded
into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a
storm threatened, it became obvious
that the lifeboat would have to be
lightened if anyone were to survive.
The captain reasoned that the right
thing to do in this situation was to
force some individuals to go over the
side and drown. Such an action, he
reasoned, was not unjust to those
thrown overboard, for they would have
drowned anyway. If he did nothing,
however, he would be responsible for
the deaths of those whom he could
have saved. Some people opposed the
captain's decision. They claimed that if
nothing were done and everyone died
as a result, no one would be
responsible for these deaths. On the
other hand, if the captain attempted to
save some, he could do so only by
killing others and their deaths would
be his responsibility; this would be
worse than doing nothing and letting
all die. The captain rejected this
reasoning. Since the only possibility
for rescue required great efforts of
rowing, the captain decided that the
weakest would have to be sacrificed.
In this situation it would be absurd, he
thought, to decide by drawing lots who
should be thrown overboard. As it
turned out, after days of hard rowing,
the survivors were rescued and the
captain was tried for his action. If you
had been on the jury, how would you
have decided?
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and
more than 30 survivors were crowded
into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a
storm threatened, it became obvious
that the lifeboat would have to be
lightened if anyone were to survive.
The captain reasoned that the right
thing to do in this situation was to
force some individuals to go over the
side and drown. Such an action, he
reasoned, was not unjust to those
thrown overboard, for they would have
drowned anyway. If he did nothing,
however, he would be responsible for
the deaths of those whom he could
have saved. Some people opposed the
captain's decision. They claimed that if
nothing were done and everyone died
as a result, no one would be
responsible for these deaths. On the
other hand, if the captain attempted to
save some, he could do so only by
killing others and their deaths would
be his responsibility; this would be
worse than doing nothing and letting
all die. The captain rejected this
reasoning. Since the only possibility
for rescue required great efforts of
rowing, the captain decided that the
weakest would have to be sacrificed.
In this situation it would be absurd, he
thought, to decide by drawing lots who
should be thrown overboard. As it
turned out, after days of hard rowing,
the survivors were rescued and the
captain was tried for his action. If you
had been on the jury, how would you
have decided?
jaQui 2016/01/13 17:55
This is very complicated and hard to decide who must be rescued. I would have just leave them all on the boat so the Ocean could decide which he want to swollow. Very sad though... Great topic swty.
This is very complicated and hard to decide who must be rescued. I would have just leave them all on the boat so the Ocean could decide which he want to swollow. Very sad though... Great topic swty.
_ShAnE_StArK_ 2016/01/13 17:57
Quote: jacki: This is very complicated and hard to decide who must be rescued. I would have just leave them all on the boat so the Ocean could decide which he want to swollow. Very sad though... Great topic swty.
Thanks swty for your comment
TinHeart 2016/01/14 09:19
The law of the sea sais that the captain should drawn with the boat or be the last one who leaves the ship.
Save the women and kids first,then the rest of the passagers and last the crewmen.
The law of the sea sais that the captain should drawn with the boat or be the last one who leaves the ship.
Save the women and kids first,then the rest of the passagers and last the crewmen.
#2 General Area
A forum for life in general. Post about news, social matters, relationships, lifestyle, or anything on your mind.