Ten Men in a Boat

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
Ten men are in a boat at sea. Their ship went down or whatever. They have no means of communication with the outside world. Work with the parameters of the problem, please. Bar miraculous intervention as a solution.

Captain: We have only enough water for nine of us to make it to land, barely, and if so, those nine will barely be alive when they get there and will need medical assistance to stay alive.
First Mate: So we need someone to volunteer to go overboard, where he will surely be eaten by sharks, so the rest can live.
Third Mate: But that would be suicide. We cannot allow that.
Fourth Mate: We could draw straws and kill the loser.
Fifth Mate: That would be murder. We cannot do that.
Sixth Mate: So it would be better for all ten of us to die than for one to die? What is this, Star Trek, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?
Captain: It sounds like it.
Second Mate: I’ll go. “Starts to jump out of boat, others pull him back.”
Captain: We can’t have that.
Second Mate: So what should we do?

Any takers?
 
Why would sacrificing yourself in this case count as a sin?

There is no intent to kill yourself, per se, the intent is to save nine lives and your death is merely the inevitable cost. Like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his squad.
 
He should just not drink the water. I know, it’s hard, but right and wrong aren’t dependant on ease.
 
DrTaffy said:
Why would sacrificing yourself in this case count as a sin?

There is no intent to kill yourself, per se, the intent is to save nine lives and your death is merely the inevitable cost. Like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his squad.
Click to expand...
In that example, the intent is to prevent the shrapnel from reaching his comrades, not to kill oneself. In the boat example, it is to kill himself to fulfill the goal. I don’t know how accurate my argument is though…
 
Truthstalker said:
Ten men are in a boat at sea. Their ship went down or whatever. They have no means of communication with the outside world. Work with the parameters of the problem, please. Bar miraculous intervention as a solution. Any takers?
Click to expand...
Start the motor and drive to shore?
 
there can actually be a lot of freshwater on the sea surface and you can survive by mixing fresh and saltwater, someone did it or claimed to have done…
i think what would happen in reality is the final option in the op’s post, nobody would allow anyone to go as they do not know the future, it might rain, there might be a ship etc. so the answer to that question would be that hope springs eternal and everyone will hang on as long as possible.:sad_bye:
 
I would see an analogy to the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where I gather CC teaching is that it is permissible to remove the section of fallopian tube containing the embryo (thereby inevitably but ‘indirectly’ causing the death of the embryo in order to save the mother’s life) but it would not be permissible to ‘directly’ kill the embryo for the same purpose.

So jumping into the water doesn’t directly kill you (a shark eventually does that) so would (I think) be allowed, but blowing your brains out may count as a sin. It all depends on how you interpret what is ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’.

I am, of course, only relaying my understanding as an outsider.
 
I’m not saying that anything any of the men said is correct. That is just what they said.

No motor, sorry. 🙂

This is of course analogous to other moral dilemmas.
 
Truthstalker said:
Ten men are in a boat at sea. Their ship went down or whatever. They have no means of communication with the outside world. Work with the parameters of the problem, please. Bar miraculous intervention as a solution.
…
Any takers?
Click to expand...
Your parameters are absurd. The parameters could never be so known to a traumatized crew that they know that exactly one person must die. The crew has only one morally acceptable answer, which is to keep everyone alive for as long as possible. They may not succeed, but then resources can be redistributed among the living.

If someone voluntarily refuses rations, particularity if already sick or weakened, that is different than throwing himself overboard. Triaging rations to those most likely to survive is acceptable. Killing to ensure adequate rations is not. Suicide or murder is never an acceptable answer.
 
runningdude said:
Your parameters are absurd. The parameters could never be so known to a traumatized crew that they know that exactly one person must die.

The only logical point you could be trying to make is to discredit Catholic moral theory, by contriving a situation where “suicide” is morally necessary. You want Catholics to look like fools defending an absurd premise. Unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Oh, please…
 
runningdude said:
You posed the issue. What moral point were you trying to make other than “murder” being acceptable?
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not trying to justify murder, if that is what you are accusing me of. I’m curious to see how the problem is approached and solved. Your accusation is illogical.
 
Truthstalker said:
Ten men are in a boat at sea. Their ship went down or whatever. They have no means of communication with the outside world. Work with the parameters of the problem, please. Bar miraculous intervention as a solution.

Captain: We have only enough water for nine of us to make it to land, barely, and if so, those nine will barely be alive when they get there and will need medical assistance to stay alive.
First Mate: So we need someone to volunteer to go overboard, where he will surely be eaten by sharks, so the rest can live.
Third Mate: But that would be suicide. We cannot allow that.
Fourth Mate: We could draw straws and kill the loser.
Fifth Mate: That would be murder. We cannot do that.
Sixth Mate: So it would be better for all ten of us to die than for one to die? What is this, Star Trek, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?
Captain: It sounds like it.
Second Mate: I’ll go. “Starts to jump out of boat, others pull him back.”
Captain: We can’t have that.
Second Mate: So what should we do?

Any takers?
Click to expand...
They only have enough water for nine at present. However, it is possible to distill fresh water from salt water, to catch and eat fish which supply some water, and to capture rainfall (which is not miraculous).
 
DrTaffy said:
Why would sacrificing yourself in this case count as a sin?

There is no intent to kill yourself, per se, the intent is to save nine lives and your death is merely the inevitable cost. Like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his squad.
Click to expand...
The ends do not justify the means. The means here is suicide, which is unacceptable.

The grenade example does not apply. That is a homicide caused by someone else throwing the grenade. Substituting one victim for many is morally acceptable. Substituting oneself for a loved one would also be morally acceptable. The death is cause caused by an aggressor, not oneself.

Throwing oneself overboard is not a morally acceptable solution to limited supplies.
 
Truthstalker said:
I’m certainly not trying to justify murder, if that is what you are accusing me of. I’m curious to see how the problem is approached and solved. Your accusation is illogical.
Click to expand...
I revised my post to remove the accusation.
 
DrTaffy said:
Why would sacrificing yourself in this case count as a sin?

There is no intent to kill yourself, per se, the intent is to save nine lives and your death is merely the inevitable cost. Like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his squad.
Click to expand...
Or like a parent sacrificing their own life for the life of their child. Or a priest such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, who gave up his own life in place of another who was chosen to be executed in Auschwitz. Sacrificing one’s own life to save another person or to be faithful to G-d is not regarded as sinful. On the contrary, it is being a martyr, which is not the same as committing suicide because one is suffering.
 
Few questions about the parameters.
How far is land?
Is anyone inured?
Is there or is there not a boat?
If there is a boat how badly is it damaged?
What time of year is it?
If the boat is intact are there any other supplies?
Just some things to help me with my decision. 🙂
 
It seems that everyone who has so far posted has missed the point of Truthstalker’s question.

The point is not the boat, or the men, or that there might be other solutions, or that the parameters of the problem are absurd, or anything else. The point is the moral question. In a situation where one person must die to let the other survive, what is the morally good way to deal with it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top