C
chevalier
Guest
Hypothetical taken from a work of fiction, hence here in philosophy and not in moral theology, where a lot of people ask for advice about real-life problems.
General has to choose between saving a:
tried and true own commando team (8 people); or
allied ship (100 people)
Plot device is he knows he can’t save both.
On the one hand, one could take the high ground and choose to save more lives, refusing to compare their relative worth or utility.
On the other hand, things aren’t necessarily so simple:
(i) Similar high ground could be taken to refuse to reduce the relative loss of human life to 100 vs 8.
(ii) If saved, a commando team of 10 will later itself save more people, both directly and by contributing to ending the war. Probably more than the average ship of 100 can.
(iii) A commando team of 10 is likely a more significant loss of assets and harder to replace than a regular ship crew.
(iv) Humans > equipment, but ships don’t grow on trees either.
(v) There is a greater obligation to one’s own people, but one could argue the point of having allies is that they’re your own people now just like your own troops.
(vi) Politically, allied countries are not likely to look kindly on having their larger troops sacrificed to save your smaller troops, so there could be some repercussions.
What do you think would be the more moral choice for the general?
General has to choose between saving a:
tried and true own commando team (8 people); or
allied ship (100 people)
Plot device is he knows he can’t save both.
On the one hand, one could take the high ground and choose to save more lives, refusing to compare their relative worth or utility.
On the other hand, things aren’t necessarily so simple:
(i) Similar high ground could be taken to refuse to reduce the relative loss of human life to 100 vs 8.
(ii) If saved, a commando team of 10 will later itself save more people, both directly and by contributing to ending the war. Probably more than the average ship of 100 can.
(iii) A commando team of 10 is likely a more significant loss of assets and harder to replace than a regular ship crew.
(iv) Humans > equipment, but ships don’t grow on trees either.
(v) There is a greater obligation to one’s own people, but one could argue the point of having allies is that they’re your own people now just like your own troops.
(vi) Politically, allied countries are not likely to look kindly on having their larger troops sacrificed to save your smaller troops, so there could be some repercussions.
What do you think would be the more moral choice for the general?
