It’s a problem in moral theology. Figure out what the right thing to do is. There are only two options:So - God and faith does not figure into the equation is that it???
I don’t understand…
Can’t say that I’m too keen on the idea of simply rejecting some of the possible options here.
Peace
James
If one person is willing to sacrifice themselves, and insistent on doing so after reflection, to save the other nine people by jumping overboard, that is the course of action I believe is the morally correct one in these terrible circumstances. Catholicism may not agree with this, and I’m not certain whether Judaism would either (although there is a stronger likelihood it might); nonetheless, I feel it is better than waiting for the probable death of all ten people, particularly if the death of all ten is as certain as the death of the one person who jumps off the boat.It’s a problem in moral theology. Figure out what the right thing to do is. There are only two options:
a) one man dies, nine live
b) all ten die
You also cannot wait for one person to die. That would force (b). I should have thought of that.
Well then I think you need a different scenario…Something more immediate. this one obviously offers more options than you wish us to contemplate.It’s a problem in moral theology. Figure out what the right thing to do is. There are only two options:
a) one man dies, nine live
b) all ten die
You also cannot wait for one person to die. That would force (b). I should have thought of that.
You have changed the parameters of the situation. Earlier you said the crews claims about one passenger having to die were not necessarily true:It’s a problem in moral theology. Figure out what the right thing to do is. There are only two options:
a) one man dies, nine live
b) all ten die
You also cannot wait for one person to die. That would force (b). I should have thought of that.
If the only options are murder and no murder, then the moral choice is obvious; all must die. There can be no wishy-washy thinking that justifies suicide or murder. Our morality in life and death situations is who we are as people; morality is not something that can be thrown away when inconvenient.I’m not saying that anything any of the men said is correct. That is just what they said.
I think it’s immoral to let all ten die needlessly. If I were in that situation, I’d either go for a swim myself when everyone was asleep, saving them all and receiving all sorts of posthumous awards, or I’d throw someone overboard when noone was looking. But I wouldn’t just sit there and do nothing and let all of us die.If the only options are murder and no murder, then the moral choice is obvious; all must die.
I think self-sacrifice is one thing, but would you really “throw someone overboard when no one was looking”? How would you decide that?I think it’s immoral to let all ten die needlessly. If I were in that situation, I’d either go for a swim myself when everyone was asleep, saving them all and receiving all sorts of posthumous awards, or I’d throw someone overboard when noone was looking. But I wouldn’t just sit there and do nothing and let all of us die.
I think I would. If it meant 9 of us would survive I’d be tempted. I’d pick the person I thought least likely to survive based on their groaning and moaning and how much of a pain they’re being to everyone in the boat and overall condition. Even if I picked the wrong person, at least the rest of us would survive. More than likely though, the others on the boat would be getting on my nerves that much, I’d probably just go for a swim. They’d survive and I wouldn’t have to listen to them anymore. A win win situation.I think self-sacrifice is one thing, but would you really “throw someone overboard when no one was looking”? How would you decide that?
The OP’s situation is too narrow. There are other options, such as refusing rations, that don’t actively kill yourself, while helping ensure more supplies for others.I think it’s immoral to let all ten die needlessly. If I were in that situation, I’d either go for a swim myself when everyone was asleep, saving them all and receiving all sorts of posthumous awards, or I’d throw someone overboard when noone was looking. But I wouldn’t just sit there and do nothing and let all of us die.
I know but in a kill or be killed situation, I think most peoples sense of survival would kick in. In actuality, there be a big fight on the boat, a couple of people would get knocked over and eaten by the sharks, and things would settle down quickly once the others realised there’s now enough water for everyone. You only have to be on the underground in London at rush hour to realise it’s dog eat dog and we’re just one disasterous event away from resorting to neanderthal savagery.The OP’s situation is too narrow. There are other options, such as refusing rations, that don’t actively kill yourself, while helping ensure more supplies for others.
I am very sorry to dispute you, but you are terribly, terribly wrong. I was a professional sailor for many years in both a merchant seaman and the Navy, and I can say that I have never heard of such a thing. It very well may be in theory, but in fact it is well documented that thousands of sailors died from trying to drink even diluted sea water. One of the most brutal descriptions of this was court martial testimony of survivors of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, a heavy cruiser that was sunk at the end of WW II.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:
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion. However, I think ANY person you picked would be the “wrong person” because you would be murdering one life to save other lives based on your choice. What if others on the boat thought as you did and chose you without your consent?I think I would. If it meant 9 of us would survive I’d be tempted. I’d pick the person I thought least likely to survive based on their groaning and moaning and how much of a pain they’re being to everyone in the boat and overall condition. Even if I picked the wrong person, at least the rest of us would survive. More than likely though, the others on the boat would be getting on my nerves that much, I’d probably just go for a swim. They’d survive and I wouldn’t have to listen to them anymore. A win win situation.
The situation could not possibly arise in real life.The core of it is:
If one dies, nine live
or
all ten die
There are no other allowed outcomes. Sorry!
It’s a kill or be killed situation, so that’s a possibility. If they did decide to murder me so they could live, I expect I’d get an eternal reward and I’d have also been spared sharing a boat with a bunch of murderers.What if others on the boat thought as you did and chose you without your consent?
If you had the option of sacrificing yourself, then I don’t see that choosing to ‘sacrifice’ another’s life instead would possibly be considered moral.However, I think ANY person you picked would be the “wrong person” because you would be murdering one life to save other lives based on your choice.
Correct. And it is just as hypocritical as all the “foreseen but unintended” types of “defenses”. If one must face an intruder, and must protect his family by using a gun, then the action of killing the attacker is justifed. There is no need to be squeamish and wishy-washy about it and say: “Ohhh, I did not ‘really’ want to kill him, but it was the foreseen and unintended result of pointing the gun at his head, and pulling the trigger”. You do what you have to do, point the gun, and pull the trigger. No one will blame you and no need to look for excuses.And in the case of pregnancy I gather the official RCC position is that ‘indirectly’ killing one human being as an inevitable but unwanted result of saving another life is morally permissible, but doing so ‘directly’ is not.
However, in such a situation you are introducing an aggressor, and the right of self defense would kick in. It would be morally acceptable to kick the aggressor off the boat to protect oneself or other passengers, particularly in the heat of the struggle.I know but in a kill or be killed situation, I think most peoples sense of survival would kick in. In actuality, there be a big fight on the boat, a couple of people would get knocked over and eaten by the sharks, and things would settle down quickly once the others realised there’s now enough water for everyone. You only have to be on the underground in London at rush hour to realise it’s dog eat dog and we’re just one disasterous event away from resorting to neanderthal savagery.
Murder and suicide are never rational options. The ends do not justify the means. Vilotating moral principles in the face of death is cowardly.Ah, the usual efforts to escape the problem. Happens all the time. Most people are cowards to face hard problems even if the problem is only hypothetical.
It is not the point if this particular scenario would arise or not. It is that sometimes reality forces you to make a choice between two “unpalatable” options. The situation is not one of your making, but the choice cannot be avoided. Rational thinking demands to minimize the harm, if harm cannot be avoided. It is obviously better for 9 people to survive than to have all 10 to die. If there is a volunteer, then no force is needed, and the problem is solved. If there is no volunteer (possible!) then a draw of luck is preferred.
As to the likelyhood of such situations. There was a disaster in the Andes, where a plane went down, and people HAD to resort to cannibalism in order to survive. They did, and no one ever blamed the survivors for their actions, even though there is a very strong prohibition against cannibalism.
I said as much earlier somewhere here, that I think in reality there’d be a big fight, and when a couple of people had gone overboard, the rest would settle down because they now knew there’d be enough water for them to survive. I also said I’d throw someone over when noboby was looking for that very reason. In a kill or be killed situation, that’s what I’d do to take my chances. If it was me to be killed, and somebody did it to me before I could do it to them, so be it. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles in this situation. What I think is completely immoral here, is for nobody to do anything, and we all die. I’d either go for a swim myself, or I’d make sure somebody else did.However, in such a situation you are introducing an aggressor, and the right of self defense would kick in. It would be morally acceptable to kick the aggressor off the boat to protect oneself or other passengers, particularly in the heat of the struggle.
Nonsense. If you are confronted with a “kill or be killed” scenario, then the rational option is “kill”. Even if you intend to kill the attacker, it is not considered “murder”. “Murder” is a legal term, and it means: “the illegal taking of the life of a human being”.Murder and suicide are never rational options.
True. It is not the “end” that justifies the means, it is that “some means achieved via certain ends” can be justified.The ends do not justify the means.
I would rather be a living coward than a dead “hero”. You may not have heard the phrase that “discretion is the better part of valor”?Vilotating moral principles in the face of death is cowardly.