Ethical dilemna: the explorer, the serial killer and the rescue dog

  • Thread starter Thread starter lux_in_tenebris_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lux_in_tenebris_1

Guest
I know this hypothetical ethical dilemna is terribly unlikely and probably riddle with plot holes you could drive a truck through, but I’m curious to see what y’alls thoughts were on this situation

Say if there was ferry accident in the middle of the sea, and through the turn of events there were 3 organisms left of the boat that was quickly sinking. One was a legendary adventurer who helped many passengers into the life boat, the second was a known serial killer who broke out of his holding cell killing a guard in the process and the third was a rescue dog who saved many souls from death including the explorer’s son. At the moment, the explorer has complete control of the situation, and a kayak that can float with two people or one person and an animal companion. Who should morally get passage on the kayak off the sinking ship?
 
lux_in_tenebris said:
I know this hypothetical ethical dilemna is terribly unlikely and probably riddle with plot holes you could drive a truck through, but I’m curious to see what y’alls thoughts were on this situation

Say if there was ferry accident in the middle of the sea, and through the turn of events there were 3 organisms left of the boat that was quickly sinking. One was a legendary adventurer who helped many passengers into the life boat, the second was a known serial killer who broke out of his holding cell killing a guard in the process and the third was a rescue dog who saved many souls from death including the explorer’s son. At the moment, the explorer has complete control of the situation, and a kayak that can float with two people or one person and an animal companion. Who should morally get passage on the kayak off the sinking ship?
Click to expand...
There is no dilemma. The explorer must save both himself and the serial killer. Of course, he must exercise all necessary effort to protect himself, say, by knocking him out, or even killing him if there is an serious threat to himself, but the effort must be towards the saving of the human life over the animal’s.
 
Yeah I reckoned that, but by my cultural background this would be a very difficult thing to accept. Growing up with a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian culture and hearing all those legends steeped with a profound sense of loyalty and kindness to animals makes this a pretty big challenge to me. But thanks for confirming my suspicions.
 
lux_in_tenebris said:
Yeah I reckoned that, but by my cultural background this would be a very difficult thing to accept. Growing up with a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian culture and hearing all those legends steeped with a profound sense of loyalty and kindness to animals makes this a pretty big challenge to me. But thanks for confirming my suspicions.
Click to expand...
Now here is a sticky point to ponder: What if the explorer felt it was an act of self defense to leave the serial killer behind? I would frankly, and would not have a problem with anyone that acted accordingly. I could find no reason to risk my life by putting myself at the mercy of a known serial killer. I would easily choose the dog and the explorer for these reasons.
 
Cricket2 said:
Now here is a sticky point to ponder: What if the explorer felt it was an act of self defense to leave the serial killer behind? I would frankly, and would not have a problem with anyone that acted accordingly. I could find no reason to risk my life by putting myself at the mercy of a known serial killer. I would easily choose the dog and the explorer for these reasons.
Click to expand...
This. In my opinion, it would be nonsensical for the explorer to choose a person who may possibly kill him (which entirely negates the boon of a life boat) over a dog that may end up saving his life.
 
He could give the serial killer couple of free swimming lessons…:newidea:
 
If the explorer was sure he can bring the serial killer to a police station in order to get him punished, then he should take the serial killer. If not then he should not take he serial killer at all.
 
I agree with the last few posters. This would depend on particulars of the situation… what he knows about the serial killer, whether he knows he can detain him for the duration of the trip, whether there is reason to believe that he will try to kill him, etc.

The serial killer is a human and so has inherent dignity (and is worthy of protection over a dog), but whether leaving him could justifiably be considered an act of self-defense would depend on the context.

(If he saves the dog, though, it doesn’t have to do with kindness or loyalty to the dog.)
 
polytropos said:
I agree with the last few posters. This would depend on particulars of the situation… what he knows about the serial killer, whether he knows he can detain him for the duration of the trip, whether there is reason to believe that he will try to kill him, etc.

The serial killer is a human and so has inherent dignity (and is worthy of protection over a dog), but whether leaving him could justifiably be considered an act of self-defense would depend on the context.

(If he saves the dog, though, it doesn’t have to do with kindness or loyalty to the dog.)
Click to expand...
That last sentence is reprehensible.

I actually agree with the point that the life even of a serial killer is more valuable than that of a dog. But to say that saving the dog wouldn’t have anything to do with kindness or loyalty to the dog is horrifying.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
That last sentence is reprehensible.

I actually agree with the point that the life even of a serial killer is more valuable than that of a dog. But to say that saving the dog wouldn’t have anything to do with kindness or loyalty to the dog is horrifying.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that it didn’t have anything to do with kindness or loyalty to the dog (though that was poorly phrased). However, kindness and loyalty to the dog are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions in this case. They are not necessary because, if you have reasoned that you should leave the serial killer, then you ought to take the dog, whether or you like and feel loyal to the dog. They are not sufficient because if you feel kind and loyal to the dog, but still have a duty to the serial killer, then you must leave the dog.

I’m not saying that one shouldn’t be kind or loyal to the dog, or that a particular person will not have any experience of kindness or loyalty in helping the dog out. What I’m saying is that kindness and loyalty to the dog are not morally relevant in this case. And there is nothing reprehensible about that.

In other words, no part of the decision a person ought to make in the given scenario should be based on whether one feels kindness or loyalty to the dog.
 
Cricket2 said:
Now here is a sticky point to ponder: What if the explorer felt it was an act of self defense to leave the serial killer behind? I would frankly, and would not have a problem with anyone that acted accordingly. I could find no reason to risk my life by putting myself at the mercy of a known serial killer. I would easily choose the dog and the explorer for these reasons.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a good reason. The explorer should do whatever he could to subdue to serial killer, such as by knocking him out and binding him. Killing him would be justified only if he presented an imminent danger to the explorer’s life, and he could morally throw him overboard if it came to this. But this scenario of “I don’t want to risk my life so I’ll let him die” is little less than murder and a human life is always priority over an animal’s.

I myself would very much want to rescue the dog over the serial killer; God knows he deserves what’s coming to him. But if I were to do as you state here, I would be no better than he is.
 
porthos11 said:
No, this is not a good reason. The explorer should do whatever he could to subdue to serial killer, such as by knocking him out and binding him. Killing him would be justified only if he presented an imminent danger to the explorer’s life, and he could morally throw him overboard if it came to this. But this scenario of “I don’t want to risk my life so I’ll let him die” is little less than murder and a human life is always priority over an animal’s.

I myself would very much want to rescue the dog over the serial killer; God knows he deserves what’s coming to him. But if I were to do as you state here, I would be no better than he is.
Click to expand...
Actually, this poster’s point is extremely valid seeing as the aforementioned serial killer already “broke out of his holding cell” and murdered his guard. 🤷 I am extraordinarily skeptical that an explorer could properly subdue the serial killer for the entirety of time spent in the life boat. This explorer also has a son and family to think about (in this particular scenario), and it is not simply a case of “I don’t want to risk my life” but more of a case over whether or not it would be prudent to unleash a serial killer upon oneself and the general populace. Personally, I think knocking out and binding the serial killer is an improbable and poorly calculated move in this situation, so this poster’s idea of considering the merits of self-defense is a worthy point.
 
AlTheCollegeGal said:
Actually, this poster’s point is extremely valid seeing as the aforementioned serial killer already “broke out of his holding cell” and murdered his guard. 🤷 I am extraordinarily skeptical that an explorer could properly subdue the serial killer for the entirety of time spent in the life boat. This explorer also has a son and family to think about (in this particular scenario), and it is not simply a case of “I don’t want to risk my life” but more of a case over whether or not it would be prudent to unleash a serial killer upon oneself and the general populace. Personally, I think knocking out and binding the serial killer is an improbable and poorly calculated move in this situation, so this poster’s idea of considering the merits of self-defense is a worthy point.
Click to expand...
For some reason the way he describes the explorer it calls to my mind Indiana Jones. The self defense angle depends on the capability of the explorer, but if we remove self defense concerns from the equation, even the worst of men is more important than even the best of dogs.
 
lux_in_tenebris said:
I know this hypothetical ethical dilemna is terribly unlikely and probably riddle with plot holes you could drive a truck through, but I’m curious to see what y’alls thoughts were on this situation

Say if there was ferry accident in the middle of the sea, and through the turn of events there were 3 organisms left of the boat that was quickly sinking. One was a legendary adventurer who helped many passengers into the life boat, the second was a known serial killer who broke out of his holding cell killing a guard in the process and the third was a rescue dog who saved many souls from death including the explorer’s son. At the moment, the explorer has complete control of the situation, and a kayak that can float with two people or one person and an animal companion. Who should morally get passage on the kayak off the sinking ship?
Click to expand...
He could sacrifice his own life for the good of the dog and the serial killer. Perhaps his willingness to give his life for others would be a lesson that would profoundly change the deluded mind of the serial killer. Perhaps the dog, being a wonderful being, would not allow this and jump into the water to rescue the explorer. Perhaps the dog would sacrifice itself.

The concept of “intrinsic value” is irrational. Value is relational.
 
Seraphignatius said:
Just because you deny the premise it is rationally based on doesn’t mean it is irrational. All it means is you disagree.
Click to expand...
Many Catholics I know argue that without God, there would be no value and no morals. If this is the case, then human value is not something intrinsic to the human, something that exists inherently within this particular animal. If human value is truly intrinsic to humans, it would negate the argument that human value depends on God.

Value is always relative to a someone, God, humans etc… One cannot locate anything within a lump of gold called “value”, but some humans value that metal because of its scarcity and the beauty they find in it. Value is something persons do, not some substance within people, animals or objects.
 
anon99031074 said:
Many Catholics I know argue that without God, there would be no value and no morals. If this is the case, then human value is not something intrinsic to the human, something that exists inherently within this particular animal. If human value is truly intrinsic to humans, it would negate the argument that human value depends on God.

Value is always relative to a someone, God, humans etc… One cannot locate anything within a lump of gold called “value”, but some humans value that metal because of its scarcity and the beauty they find in it. Value is something persons do, not some substance within people, animals or objects.
Click to expand...
God is he that is. The supreme reality. Things do have the exact value he assigns them, and it is as much a part of them as any other aspect of the existence he sustains in them.
 
Seraphignatius said:
God is he that is. The supreme reality. Things do have the exact value he assigns them, and it is as much a part of them as any other aspect of the existence he sustains in them.
Click to expand...
You were right in pointing out that I did not make an argument by merely stating that the idea of intrinsic value is irrational. Now I would like to point out that you are also making a statement without argument, and without actually responding to the points I made. At any rate, I don’t wish to hijack the thread, which was originally about who to save from drowning.
 
anon99031074 said:
Many Catholics I know argue that without God, there would be no value and no morals. If this is the case, then human value is not something intrinsic to the human, something that exists inherently within this particular animal. If human value is truly intrinsic to humans, it would negate the argument that human value depends on God.
Click to expand...
Well, I won’t speak for many unnamed Catholics, but the Church has traditionally (though unofficially) endorsed Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law whereby value is inherent in humans but calls for explanation which must be ultimately rooted in God (because value will be grounded in final causality, for instance).

A-T argues that goodness is “convertible” with being. That they are convertible does not mean that they are synonymous; it means (to employ some analytic jargon) that they differ in sense but not in reference. When we call something good, we are referring to an aspect of its being.

(One way to grasp this is by noting that “is good” is a logically attributive, rather than logically predicative, adjective. In other words, “x is good” is indeterminate; we cannot assess whether x is good unless we know what sort of thing x is. If x is F, then “x is good” is materially equivalent to “x is a good F”. “is good” differs in sense according to whether it is predicated of, say, a cat or a knife, and is thereby consequent upon being. To say that “cat1 is good” and “cat2 is bad” is to assess “how well” cat1 and cat2 succeed at being cats. This can be objectively grounded in the natures of cats; ie. we call cat2 bad because it is missing a leg, and cats as a natural kind possess four legs in order to achieve their various other ends. There is a slightly relational aspect to goodness/value in the respect that I can misjudge what is good, and if I were a sick freak I might believe that it is good for cats to have three legs rather than four, but that is an error that can be assessed objectively from a study of what cats are. This only scratches the surface of A-T metaethics, however.)

A Catholic speaking carefully would qualify that if per impossibile God did not exist, there would be no value. Or one might say, “God is a necessary condition for anything else existing, so if God did not exist, then nothing would exist, so there would be no value.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top