Moral Paradox: Husband, Wife and Ferryman

[Gorgias]

ckoeber101:

what should the husband do

Divorce.

No.

No, no, NO!

“Till death do us part”, remember?

(Now, if the wife makes a habit of being unfaithful – regardless of the way she attempts to justify it – then that’s a different situation. However, in the given thought experiment, “divorce” is not the answer!)

 

[Gorgias]

If two people are randomly stranded on separate islands and a ferryman is trying to extort her for sex in order to get off, I can 100% guarantee you that she would not be charged with any crime in stealing the boat.

I hope you’re not a judge. Or a prosecution attorney. Then again, if you were, you would soon learn the error of your perspective.

The ferryman, on the other hand, could be charged with a crime, though proof would be an issue of course.

OK… I’ll bite: what’s the crime?

 

[TK421]

Extortion of course, as well as a duty to rescue. He neither rescues her nor reports it (presumably), and that is something you can be liable for.

 

[LisaB]

OK – let’s break it down:

• I pull up in my car, get out, and ask you to do something that isn’t a crime, but is immoral. I don’t threaten you, but merely ask you to do something immoral.
• You hit me over the head and steal my car.

Have you committed a crime? Yes, you have – grand theft auto!

Not to mention assault!

 

[TK421]

Not to mention assault!

If she needed to hit him over the head with something (an oar or a branch) in order to get away from him and off the island, that would also be cleared and it would be morally permissible.

 

[Zaccheus]

But it would not be a sin to take his boat, because using the boat for exhortation and rape is unlawful.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The ferryman’s extortion is wrong. That does not justify the wife in committing a different wrong.

The scenario would not be a criminal offense, unless the jury was highly eccentric and intellectually incompetent. The case would then go to a higher court and the person would be cleared. .

To which court do you refer? Because there are a great many possible courts, and ‘this is what should happen’ is not the same as ‘this is what would happen’.

Stealing a boat is a criminal offence in all the courts I know of.

She would also probably receive financial compensation in addition to being cleared of any crime.

 

[TK421]

A wrong can never justify another wrong, but self-defense (unless needlessly excessive) is not a wrong. She can stay stranded on an island with a scary man who wants to rape her, or she can try to take the boat and hopefully she will be successful. The act of taking the boat in order to get off the island is not a wrong, therefore there is no sin.

 

[jack63]

It’s not that bad or unreasonable of a question. There are lots of people in life who will try to take advantage of you.

I’ve really come to believe that there always is a hidden option 3. The wife or husband should learn to build a canoe…something like this.

I’m awfully curious what this has to do with your faith journey. It could be very relevant to many people’s journey.

 

[Zaccheus]

A wrong can never justify another wrong, but self-defense (unless needlessly excessive) is not a wrong. She can stay stranded on an island with a scary man who wants to rape her, or she can try to take the boat and hopefully she will be successful. The act of taking the boat in order to get off the island is not a wrong, therefore there is no sin.

At no point did the OP say the wife and the ferryman were the only people on that island. There could be a village. There could be multiple villages. The wife’s problem is not that no transport exists: it’s that she can’t pay for transport.
You can’t solve the dilemma by assuming new conditions not mentioned in the original description.

Obviously neither can I. Nor am I trying to. I say not that there must be other people but that you have no grounds to assume ther wife is alone with the ferryman.

 

[TK421]

At no point did the OP say the wife and the ferryman were the only people on that island. There could be a village. There could be multiple villages. The wife’s problem is not that no transport exists: it’s that she can’t pay for transport.
You can’t solve the dilemma by assuming new conditions not mentioned in the original description.

Obviously neither can I. Nor am I trying to. I say not that there must be other people but that you have no grounds to assume ther wife is alone with the ferryman.

Given the context of the scenario, it seemed more likely that they were stranded on two islands than that the husband and wife were arbitrarily hanging out on two separate populated islands. At least that is how I interpreted it and I did indeed fill in some blanks.

If they’re just living normal lives on two populated islands, than of course, it wouldn’t be justifiable to take the boat because she doesn’t need to protect herself from anything.

If she needs a way off a lone island and the ferryman is trying to extort her for sex, then it is completely morally permissible to take his boat to get off the island, nor would she ever be charged for any crime.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Haven’t been to this forum in a while; as I revisit my faith I was asked a question that I was curious as to other’s thoughts. First, the conundrum a family member at dinner posed:

A husband and a wife are on separate islands separated by a Ferryman. The wife wants to be with her husband, but the only way is through the boat the Ferryman has. The wife has no money to pay the Ferryman so the Ferryman asks the wife for a night in bed.

Question One : Assuming this is the only way the wife will see the husband again, should the wife sleep with the Ferryman to see her husband again?

You have a very interesting family. My son (age 12) constantly plies me with “would you rather…?” questions, and I am frequently able to use these as teachable moments for traditional Catholic morality. If we really “get on a roll”, I give him homeschool religion credit for it.

This is the simplest question I’ve answered in quite some time. No, she may not do this. The end does not justify the means. There are worse things than being involuntarily separated from one’s spouse for life — such as committing even one mortal sin. (Or one venial sin, for that matter.)

Question Two : How should the husband feel or what should the husband do when he finds out about the wife’s decision either way.

If she chooses not to do this, he should be pleased that she chose not to sin. It will be far better for them to spend eternity in heaven together, than to be together in this life but committing a sin to accomplish that.

If she chooses to do this, I suppose he would have to forgive her. It wouldn’t be easy, but not all things in life are easy.

 

[Rau]

Hard to take the original post as a serious question. The appropriate response seems obvious, and the original poster has made no contribution to the thread. Unsurprisingly, the thread has been set to have a quite short lifetime!

 

[neophyte]

It would also be sinful (and a criminal offense!) to steal his boat.

The woman is free to say no (as she obviously should) but she is not justified in stealing his property.

A principle of moral theology is that it is not theft to take something that you need, if a reasonable owner would give it to you under the circumstances. A starving person commits no sin if he surreptitiously takes food from someone who has plenty and yet refuses to provide it.

It’s obvious that a husband and wife need to be united, and that a reasonable ferryman would gladly give passage. It is morally licit for her to take the boat, provided that it was returned to the owner after she is reunited with her husband.

Who could reasonably be expected to kick the **** out of the ferryman when he caught up with him.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

I would suggest this: the ferryman is paid by the husband, and the husband crosses the river/sea himself. Or, the husband (or wife) builds a canoe/boat and crosses the river/sea without the ferryman.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t sleep with the ferryman to see her husband again. If the wife is out of money, I think her husband can either pay the ferryman for his wife or the husband crosses the ocean/river for himself and see his wife.

 

[ckoeber101]

Hello,

Posted a short time ago and then went to bed. Thread took on a whole life of its own; hope that is one point of forums.

I’ll respond in a bit on what various folks in my family came up with; in short curious as no one made any mention of sacrifice.

Thank you to all who posted so far, hope to keep the conversation going.

 

[ckoeber101]

So feedback that I have not seen and am curious on is this:

Could we take a perspective on a sacrificial route: The wife in this case sacrifices her body to be reunited with her husband? She had no intent or lust in her heart for the ferryman and thus in order to be reunited with her husband sacrificed her body via rape to be with her husband.

Just a different take based on feedback given.

 

[ckoeber101]

Last thing, of course you can always change the thought experiment (husband pays, they build a separate boat, etc.) but the assumption is that you interact with the thought experiment as is.

Basically, the wife’s ONLY option is to sleep with the Ferryman to see her husband again and both husband and wife have no way to see each other without either paying the Ferryman (in which case she doesnt have the money) or sleeping with him. Of course she can decline but must deal with consequences.

 

[Mhkc]

“One may not do evil so that good might result.”

Indeed. And with all sincere due compassion and respectfully, , it’s none of my business what another person percieves either.

As an employer, and 501c3 operator, I’ve had on more than a few occasions, been on the recieving end of deeply held misperceptions toward me by individuals toward my companies, and my charities, and my goodwill.

Thus, not become jaded at such facts of xp in my care toward humanity…because I do give a hoot…I just say I have large disclaimers now in my enterprises, and 501c3…unfortunately all these lessons are my own life xp of earned stripes from trying to actually really help others in need, and then experiencing their responses. I can say with rather clear experiential principles, that more than a few times "people heap the upon hurt themselves " , repeat cycles they ultimately choose. Lie abe Lincoln said, “people are as happy as they choose”, but bear in mind Abe had some strong bouts of depression, bless his heart.

For me a lesson I solemnly seek to carry is the awareness that: others , in their best effort, and whom I may see the best in, may not see or act out the best in themselves. And if not careful: bring up down with them.

This is not easy. I love. I care. CHRIST lives and grows in me with prodigal grace. I feel a deep sense to give back as I have been given. Yet, vigilance of soul, heart, and mind is key for me. Sure vigilance can be exhausting, but the cost of sloth in my catholic pursuit of Christ, is hell. In that way, I really cant say it feels like much of a choice, but it is a choice.

 

[Mintaka]

Thought experiments that are designed to set up ridiculous dilemmas are basically an attempt to legitimize ridiculous behavior.

I do not blame the OP, as he or she has drunk the Kool-Aid as to thought experiments of this kind being legit.

But experientially, if you encounter a professor asking you this kind of question, it usually means that they are trying to get students to sleep with them. (Or do something else illegal or immoral.)

Thought experiments in physics are usually legit, albeit a little hard on spherical cows and Schroedinger’s cat.

Any other kind? “If you meet a philosopher on the road who sets you a thought experiment, kill him. It’s the only way to prevent the train wreck and save both the crowd of people and the baby.”

 

[ckoeber101]

All thought experiments are flawed in the sense that they will never encapsulate every possible part of life; they are useful tools to help isolate and highlight a particular moral or theological question.

In this case it seems everyone on the thread is taking the approach that the wife should stay on the island and not sleep with the ferryman (unless they are allowed to change the thought experiment in some way).