During our discussion in class on Tuesday we talked about many topics including, “applied” ethics, normative philosophy, also known as ethical theory, metaethics, basic moral theory, and others. However, the topic that stood out to me the most was moral dilemmas. Being faced with the predicament of having to choose between two things that are equally unpleasant occurs more often than we think. A student who hasn’t studied for a test must choose to cheat or to fail; a teen caught doing something wrong must choose to lie or to get in trouble.
In class, our largest moral dilemma debate was about the “trolley problem”. We had to choose between letting five people die or elect two others to be killed. Neither option is morally right and both leave you with a guilty conscience.
As we discussed the moral dilemmas, the movie “Titanic” came into my mind, specifically the part when Titanic was sinking. Through this thought process I came up with a moral dilemma that I would like to share and discuss.
In my opinion, I would have to let everyone die. I would not be able to live with the guilt of choosing 10 people to die. Even if that meant I could save over half of the boat, being responsible for just one death would be something that I could not live with. But now I am wondering what your decision would be in this moral dilemma, what would you do?
One thing I noticed in class when we were discussing the trolley problem was that in general, it was much easier for people to comment on what they would do in the situation when they weren’t the one who was going to directly encounter the people who would have to die. Once the element of personal interaction was introduced, there was more of a sense of hesitance. That situation and this titanic dilemma are both cases where there is no good and bad. If anything, there is one that is the “better bad.”
ReplyDeleteWhen evaluating the titanic dilemma from a distance, it seems absurd that the captain would consider letting everyone die when it would be possible to save some people. However, when I put myself in the situation, I doubt I would be able to elect people to die. Although I can acknowledge that doing nothing and letting everyone stay on the boat would result in a greater number of deaths and would be an illogical move, the guilt factor would motivate me to pick this choice. In a way, it comes down to passively letting 35 people die or actively choosing 10 people to die. There will be deaths either way and in the numbers game, the answer is clear-cut. The saying “ignorance is bliss” comes to mind when evaluating the possible decisions. If I let everybody die including myself, I would have a greater number of deaths on my hands then if I made it safely to shore with 25 people. But, the act of deliberately picking which people would die is not something I think I could do. Is that me avoiding responsibility? Does it make no sense? Maybe…but to me it seems like it’s the lesser of two evils because although it may not make sense, I feel like my conscience would be clearer.
Allycia, you proposed a very interesting dilemma for us to consider, and I understand both your point and Esha’s comment. Although I do think you created the dilemma with your personal response/bias already formed, my response to this is a bit more complicated. Both of you mentioned that guilt would deter you from choosing 10 people to be removed from the boat, and that you would rather “passively” be responsible for the death of 35, including yourself, than to “actively” kill 10. I find that extremely interesting, if for no other reason than an insight into different characters. And as a side note, although you cannot change the context of the dilemma, by intentionally overstuffing the boat with 35 when it could only fit 15, you are consciously putting yourself into this dilemma and causing its existence. Your attempt at saving more lives effectively kills them anyway once they step onto the boat.
ReplyDeleteAn issue I always have with these thought experiment dilemmas is that they only allow for ration, pre-determined though, and never leave room for emotional response. In the moment, would you really be willing to die?
And you both seem to equate letting the boat sink with passivity, which I have a huge problem with. I think that by overfilling the boat, letting it sink, and then causing you and 34 others to drown or freeze to death does in fact make you actively responsible for those deaths. I understand that you are trying to take what may be considered the “more honorable” way out by not making a choice and dying along with everyone else. But I think the only way this option would make me feel less guilty is because I know won’t even be able to feel guilt once I’m dead, or really be held accountable (unless you believe in a higher power, in which case I think you’d still be dealing with some guilt and accountability that might further complicate your answer). Either way, I think this was a very interesting dilemma you posed. And while I would hope to never have to make that decision (obviously), I don’t know if I really would go down with my ship. Which would probably make me a horrible captain, so I wouldn’t be in that situation anyway. (read that last sentence with a whole lot of sarcasm, btw.)
The Titanic dilemma that you came up with is a very interesting story and it has also some related historical situations. I remember a story, in which some people were in a little boat, because their big ship sunk. Being in this boat, without having a chance to navigate, they soon had to face a very big problem: Hunger and thirst. Very fast, it became clear that the only way to have a chance to survive was, to kill on man after another and to eat his flesh.
ReplyDeleteThese two stories have one thing in common: who do you wanna pick? Who has "the honor to save other people's life"? Like Esha and Jane, I think, doing nothing is the worst thing (and I really like Jane's thought that the responsibility for their deaths already begins with overfilling the boats).
So, if we have now decided that some people have to die, in order to safe other people's life, I think, the most important issue, we have to talk about is, who we're gonna pick. Men first, letting women and children survive? The poor ones, to save rich people's life? Saving the just ones and killing the unjust? Asking for volunteers? Or just picking randomly?
No matter, how we're gonna choose, for me, one thing is clear: The only way for the captain the "solve" this dilemma is, to be one of the people, who commit suicide to save the rest.
I think that we are assuming a very basic fact of humanity within the people on the boat. As seen in literature such as "Lord of the Flies," when people feel that their own lives are at stake, they will fight, kill, and destroy each other to maintain their own survival. I think the strongest person, the "bull" as it were, would end up throwing people overboard; at 5'3", I would not qualify unless in a boat of small children.
ReplyDeleteHowever, assuming people listen to my thoughts and ideas, I think everyone would have to be reduced to value and money is the only common denominator. Insurance companies and the court system use this idea continually and we would have to employ that in this particular situation. Unfortunately, those with the least value, will have to hop off the boat.
I found you all's conversation very interesting, and I thought I would butt in a little.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that we are all selfish beings. But because I have no possible way of checking that I will speak personally: "I will NOT die voluntarily." When talking of being responsible of the deaths of the passengers, Jane is absolutely right in saying that I (as the captain) took responsibilty the minute I allowed 35 people to load a 15 passengers boat. But putting that aside and just dealing with the conditions at hand, I would have to admit that I am too selfish to allow myself to die when i know that i could survive. Now adding to that the possiblity to saving another 19 people? Well this latter is a great bonus, but in all honesty I would just use it as a cover story for the real reason I doing it, which is to save my own life.
As far as how are we to choose who will die. Well I have an answer for that too, and it might sound really horrible, sp just bear with me for a second. At first, I will make it clear to the passengers that there is no way that they can get to land without me (the CAPTAIN), and my obvious knowledge of the boat and the water. Second I will tell them the situation we are ALL in, and ask THEM to choose who will die, and who will survive. Chances are, we will have some people on the boat like Flo, who will readily give up their life, and I'm pretty sure that others will follow out of pride, honor, or maybe because they have family on the boat that they want to survive, or maybe just because they want to die KNOWING that their deaths were beneficial to others. Who knows?! What's sure is that 10 people will eventually be off the boat(and believe me I will be sad, for I am not as cold as I appear to be on here ... remember this is a computer, emotions are not properly transmitted), and the 24+me(25) that remain will make it safely to land.
It is clearly murderous to push people off the boat against their will, but is it not also murderous to watch the boat slowly sink knowing that your weight is only speeding up the process? Rather than pushing people off of the boat, you could be the hero and jump off of the boat in hopes of saving others' lives. Ideally, others will follow and few can be saved.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what route you take in this situation, death is highly likely. You have your choice between actively killing people in order to save yourself among others, waiting in the sinking boat to avoid killing while awaiting an inevitable death, or acting as a hero and sacrificing yourself so that others may follow your lead. If you cannot be lucky enough to be chosen to live, dying to save another is a noble way to die. I don't believe I could push people out of the boat even if it meant I was saving lives, but I hope I could find the strength to sacrifice myself.
What if you were in a situation where the boat was holding a group of 35 men, all equal in age. Who would jump then? In a situation where there were 10 men and the rest women and children it is easier to decide who will be the hero. But if all members were equal, are those that stay in the boat cowards? And, furthermore, are the lives of heros more worthy than the lives of cowards?
On another note, I raised my hand in class as a person who would pull the lever on the train to save 3 lives and more forwardly kill 2. This situation, however, does seem different because there is direct interaction between the victims and myself. The tools we use to kill people are even more effective than actively killing with our hands, so why are we less hesitant to pull a trigger?