[Silencer]

OK, so, new scenario time, I guess?

This is one I actually had the pleasure of debating during an Ethics paper tutorial session, so I'll do my best to remember it. It changes the bearing of action in much the same way as the "push the fat guy onto the tracks" variation, but has some added impact (pun not intended).


You are the Captain of a recently abandoned ship. You and 12 passengers are on the only lifeboat. It has capacity for 12 people, so is currently overburdened, even for calm waters. However, there is a storm approaching. You know that the only way to ensure some people survive that storm (it cannot be avoided) is to reduce the number of people in the lifeboat to 6. This means the other people will certainly die. If even 10 people remain in the lifeboat prior to the storm's arrival, everyone will die.

What do you do? (assume for the moment that passengers are created equal and are evenly split between men and women, no children)

[amphibian]

If somewhere in the North Equatorial Gyre and well outside any normal shipping lanes, murder the fattest six and dry their meat for later consumption. A skipover is given if someone has useful fishing/navigation/survival skills.

If in a shipping lane, get the rope out, tie six passengers in the water to the boat, give them an extra life jacket and hope some make it through the storm outside the boat. Tie them individually because we don't want one line failure to doom all six in the water.

[Gust Hubb]

Push the track worker over to the other track with the five people.

Push the fat man off after the trolley has passed.

Drill a hole in the hull and tell everyone to swim for shore. May the strongest win!




Edit: Sorry just couldn't resist.

This post has been edited by Gust Hubb: 25 August 2014 - 02:34 AM

[Saitama]

Like they say, there's always a third option...
I would like to see the face of an evil mastermind after all this trouble he went through to set up a death trap only to see some dude happily killing everybody anyway.

[Cause]

Silencer, on 24 August 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

OK, so, new scenario time, I guess?

This is one I actually had the pleasure of debating during an Ethics paper tutorial session, so I'll do my best to remember it. It changes the bearing of action in much the same way as the "push the fat guy onto the tracks" variation, but has some added impact (pun not intended).


You are the Captain of a recently abandoned ship. You and 12 passengers are on the only lifeboat. It has capacity for 12 people, so is currently overburdened, even for calm waters. However, there is a storm approaching. You know that the only way to ensure some people survive that storm (it cannot be avoided) is to reduce the number of people in the lifeboat to 6. This means the other people will certainly die. If even 10 people remain in the lifeboat prior to the storm's arrival, everyone will die.

What do you do? (assume for the moment that passengers are created equal and are evenly split between men and women, no children)

Well in this scenario where it is literally we all die or we reduce our numbers by six immediately I would say its not even an ethical or moral dilema. We need to reduce the number of people on the boat by 6. Ask for volunteers. Then do lots and then if necessary fight. The mathematical certainty of the scenario is too perfect in my opinion and makes the problem easy.

[Silencer]

Well, that's what I thought too. However, approximately half of my tutorial resolutely sat there and told us that they'd rather everyone dies than them choosing who to throw overboard.

So I contest your position on the basis that I've heard other people argue against it before.

[Silencer]

And remember, it's not a problem to be solved. It's a basis for ethical discussion - why is it so obvious to you to throw people overboard? How do you choose which people? Do you go too? What if the people with the best chance of survival all volunteer to go over?

[amphibian]

Silencer, on 26 August 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

And remember, it's not a problem to be solved. It's a basis for ethical discussion - why is it so obvious to you to throw people overboard? How do you choose which people? Do you go too? What if the people with the best chance of survival all volunteer to go over?

Drogues allow for greater survivability in the storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogue

So I'd go for that as the first option, as it gets 6 people out of the boat, ups the chances for survival and allows for possible retrieval after the storm has passed.

The location of the boat is crucial. If it's somewhere in the Great Lakes, the people could have an good shot of making it to shore. If it's near a coast (where almost all small boats would be), then someone else in a boat could come along and the survival vs. ethics battle is much gentler.

If it's in the Northern Equatorial Gyre, far from any hope of fast rescue, it's a pure, raw survival matrix. Ethics are for those who would not only die, but doom others to die as well - rendering the first set of deaths meaningless.

This is why you can't just say "boat in the water, storm coming." The dynamic and option trees are too complex for that to be at all a worthwhile thing to talk about.

[Gredfallan Ale]

amphibian, on 26 August 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

Ethics are for those who would not only die, but doom others to die as well - rendering the first set of deaths meaningless.

For me, the only ethical decision would be to reduce the number of people, as the ethical value of everyone dying would be lower. So, for me, ethics are for those who maximize the outcome value, while appreciating that those adhering to those ethics might still die (they might be part of the 7 to lose their place).

amphibian, on 26 August 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

This is why you can't just say "boat in the water, storm coming." The dynamic and option trees are too complex for that to be at all a worthwhile thing to talk about.

In a real life situation, yes, but in the situation described in the post the dynamics and option tree is rather simple:

- Reduce the number to 6 --> 7 people die, 6 survive;
- Failure to reduce the number to 6 --> 13 people die.

However, I think you mean that the problem given is too artificial to have any application in real life situations. I think I agree with that, although some of them do tell us something about how people process values and use emotion in decision making.

[Cause]

Silencer, on 26 August 2014 - 01:59 AM, said:

Well, that's what I thought too. However, approximately half of my tutorial resolutely sat there and told us that they'd rather everyone dies than them choosing who to throw overboard.

So I contest your position on the basis that I've heard other people argue against it before.

If they truly have the courage of their convictions then our problem is solved. That half of the boat should volunteer to get off.