Most people think they have a good handle on their ethics, and could make the right decision in crucial matters, or "it will all work itself out."
It surprised me recently how some answered the following scenario. Listening for self-preservation over self-sacrifice, utilitarianism and relativism over ontological Christian ethics. In the scenario below, was the Captain wrong?
Quote:
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold seven. 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 in 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. The captain made the decision of who was left behind so that others could survive.
As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the remaining survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.
|
Threaded Mode
