Moral Dilemma # Umpteen

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doc_Keele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doc_Keele

Guest
I hope yet another moral dilemma won’t be too boring, but I came across this one during some reading for a paper I have to write:

A ship overturns in heavy seas. The trapped passengers are trying to leave via a rope ladder. A man becomes stuck on the ladder, paralysed by cold and fear. When he cannot be persuaded to come up or down, the ones nearest him on the ladder push him off so they can make their escape. He is never seen again and is presumed drowned.

Is this action morally permissible?
 
The direct and deliberate killing of an innocent human person is murder; it is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Such an act is never justified, not even to save a thousand lives at the cost of one innocent life.

Pushing him so that he falls to his death is a direct and deliberate killing, and is never moral.

If he could be pushed out of the way, without killing him, so that others could be saved, and if he then remained paralyzed by fear, refusing all help and encouragement to move, so that he ends up dead, the persons who pushed him out of the way would not be guilty of murder.
 
Well it’s not murder Ron, because it’s not the deliberate unlawful killing of a person.
So knowing that it’s not murder, what’s your amended answer?
 
Doc_Keele said:
I hope yet another moral dilemma won’t be too boring, but I came across this one during some reading for a paper I have to write:

A ship overturns in heavy seas. The trapped passengers are trying to leave via a rope ladder. A man becomes stuck on the ladder, paralysed by cold and fear. When he cannot be persuaded to come up or down, the ones nearest him on the ladder push him off so they can make their escape. He is never seen again and is presumed drowned.

Is this action morally permissible?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure, but it might be considered self-defense to push him.
 
I guess I’m having trouble visualizing your scenario. If the ship overturns, aren’t they in the water already? How then are they utilizing a rope ladder? To escape from where to where?
 
Err, it’s not an invented scenario, this actually happened.This was the people trying to escape the upturned ship.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I hope yet another moral dilemma won’t be too boring, but I came across this one during some reading for a paper I have to write:

A ship overturns in heavy seas. The trapped passengers are trying to leave via a rope ladder. A man becomes stuck on the ladder, paralysed by cold and fear. When he cannot be persuaded to come up or down, the ones nearest him on the ladder push him off so they can make their escape. He is never seen again and is presumed drowned.

Is this action morally permissible?
Click to expand...
If there is a reasonable assumption that the man on the ladder will die as a result of pushing him off the ladder, such an action is not morally permissible.
 
Newbie2 said:
Self-defense would presume that one is defending themself against that man, or that that man was deliberately trying to harm others.
Click to expand...
The relevant legal justification would be necessity.
 
Newbie2 said:
If there is a reasonable assumption that the man on the ladder will die as a result of pushing him off the ladder, such an action is not morally permissible.
Click to expand...
What about the reasonable assumption that if the man is not pushed off the ladder, both he and everyone else will die. No matter how you look at it, the man is going to end up dead.
 
Newbie2 said:
If there is a reasonable assumption that the man on the ladder will die as a result of pushing him off the ladder, such an action is not morally permissible.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree.There’s not the intention to kill him, it’s a side-effect.
 
If you point a loaded gun at someone’s head and pull the trigger, there is a reasonable assumption that that person will die, or at least be greviously injured (assuming you’re a good shot).

How is that a different morally than, if there’s a reasonable assumption that the man will drown, pushing him into the sea, in the sense that in either case your actions will cause his death, and your actions are avoidable.
 
Newbie2 said:
Read what I said, Doc.

"B]*If *
Click to expand...
there is a reasonable assumption that the man on the ladder will die as a result of pushing him off the ladder, such an action is not morally permissible."

Yes, and your point is?
 
Newbie2 said:
Self-defense would presume that one is defending themself against that man,
One is defending oneself against that man because that man is preventing one from escaping to safety.
or that that man was deliberately trying to harm others.
The harm doesn’t have to be deliberate. If a sleepwalker or deranged person tries to kill me I have just as much right to defend myself from them as from a deliberate attack.
Click to expand...
 
Newbie2 said:
Read what I said, Doc.
“IF there is a reasonable assumption that the man on the ladder will die as a result of pushing him off the ladder, such an action is not morally permissible.”

I think we’re on the same page.
Click to expand...
I did read what you said.The issue of intent applies even if there is a reasonable assumption that he will die. If it’s virtually certain and the person pushing appreciates this, that’s a different matter.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I did read what you said.The issue of intent applies even if there is a reasonable assumption that he will die. If it’s virtually certain and the person pushing appreciates this, that’s a different matter.
Click to expand...
Oops. I edited my post and we crosses wires.

Yes, I think we agree here. There has to be a reasonable assertion that the man will die in order for it to be an immoral act.
 
Newbie2 said:
Oops. I edited my post and we crosses wires.

Yes, I think we agree here. There has to be a reasonable assertion that the man will die in order for it to be an immoral act.
Click to expand...
We don’t - I would say that even if there is a reasonable possibility that the man will die it would be morally permissible on grounds of necessity. Only if his death is virtually certain would it be impermissible (R v. Dudley and Stephens).
 
Doc_Keele said:
Err, it’s not an invented scenario, this actually happened.This was the people trying to escape the upturned ship.
Click to expand...
Okay, well I still don’t know if the people in this scenario are in the water already or still on the boat. 🤷
 
I don’t mean to derail the thread, but what about a similar situation in which the man is blocking the escape because he wants to commit suicide but is afraid of dying, so he wants to take the rest of the passengers with him to death.

It seems to me this makes pushing the man more justifiable, but if so, then we are judging the man not on his actions but his intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top