Lifeboat ethics: Would you sacrifice one life to save many?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Professor Michael Sandel examines this moral dilemma in a case from 1884.
From our free online course, “Justice”: www.edx.org/co...
- Subscribe to our channel: / @harvardonline
- Sign up for emails about new courses: harvardx.link/...
- HarvardX courses on edX: www.edx.org/sc...
- Harvard University's online courses: online-learnin...
HarvardX empowers the faculty of Harvard University to create high-quality online courses in subjects ranging from computer science to history, education, and religion.
Learn more in our free online course, “Justice”: harvardx.link/cjm2j
The captain was responsible for his crew. The captain failed to do his job and further more sacrificed one of his members for self preservation. 'Whosoever dies first shall be eaten.' Should've been the rule. needles to say, non of us can come close to comprehending the amount of odds stacked against them.
Mike B The perception of odds is an illusion of the mind based on one’s limited personal experience. Imagine being rescued as he was stabbing the cabin boy. That could have also been a possibility although unexpected. The only moral actions apart from inaction is some form of self-sacrifice (not necessarily death).
I fully agree but what if it took to long to wait for one person to naturally die and two accidentally end up dying at the same time? That could extend the issue further.
If we die we all die together. If someone wants to murder someone I will be pushing them out of the boat to the sharks.
@@halahasan8591 not just that, you cannot eat a dead body and survive, it will get infected and unfit to eat cuz it might kill you
It's the same as stealing. You sacrifice someone else's financial stability to better the financial stability of your entire family. Like killing one competitor to allow many others to succeed. Destroying one business to allow local businesses to grow. Just because net gain is more than the loss doesn't make it moral.
Bigger fish always eat the small fish so if small fish has a chance to take a bite from the bigger fish, they should do it.
You are missing the point, if no one is killed then probably all of them will die from hunger. You cannot compare with thieves or stealing, because the financial stability of a rich person and the poor person is not in the precarious state.
It's murder, full stop. Any necessity wasn't immediate as you can live for 3 weeks without food. I think the issue was getting something to drink, but even then they could've drunk rain water. They could've just waited for someone to die then eaten them if they just needed food. I think this should be clearer.
No amount of necessity can justify the killing of an innocent person
Why?
Bro literally said why lol
In a hypothetical there is definitely a point where the lives saves can justify killing an innocent, from a utilitarian
I think the most important question is the ability to make decisions regarding a person's life. The court's decision must be in accordance with the article of the constitution, since otherwise, having killed one, a person will kill another.
So, in our opinion, punishment can be remote control, or placement in the conditions that the killed person experienced.
The boy was stripped out of rights. An example is the right to live.
Michael sandel is awesome, great books
The best response could be
How will you even eat a flesh of a human being without any source of fire and salt...And how would you survive soo many days without any source of drinkable water...The question is very hypothetical plus you can't eat someone no matter how many lives are saved....
Moral obligations help us to live peacefully in a society. But there was no society or the judge to help them when they were stranded in middle of the ocean. So what happened is what happens in the wild, stronger ate the weaker. So did they do a moral thing? No. But did they do the right thing? I would say yes.
killing that boy was wrong. the only justification for cannibalism in that situation is if any of them died of normal causes, also it's unlikely that they will all die at the same moment out of starvation so whenever any of them dies naturally then it's okay.
Again, another unrealistic psychological problem.
Too many variables here. Finding food shouldn't be that rare either, where it would come down to cannibalism. They wouldn't have much, but they wouldn't have no catches in 2 weeks.
Kid was also sick, so he would have died regardless before help arrived. Thats the entire reason the captain killed HIM, because he was dying anyway, so they needed to harvest what they could before they all ended up dying. Sacrificing yourself you say? Wouldn't work. Like we said, the kid is sick and dying. They would both die regardless, and not only that but the kid could risk making the whole ship ill.
These are life and death survival scenarios. Morality plays no part in it. Id you're on the verge of death, after starving for 8 days, the last thing you care about is the morality of killing someone for survival. In these situations, as a leader you have to take initiative and make the controversial decision that keeps the civilization moving forward. This captain did just that, dirtying his hands to kill the sick child so the rest could live on. If there truly was no other way, then it was the right decision, even if they destroy morals.
But again, these situations are still unrealistic and stupid. You need more context instead of taking it at face value.
They did confess to murdering the boy, and the act of the murder itself is pretty darn illegal, regardless of circumstance.
You'd rather die? If it was you and your parents and an ill stranger? You'd keep him alive?
@@jakemorrison8507 I'm just saying, they are justified in jailing them, since they confessed to committing murder (killing the boy and eating him for sustenance). Both in an ethical and legal standpoint, what they did was heinous, regardless of their needs at the time.
@@roobs2976 I don't know, I think you're wrong in all honesty. I think laws, ethics and rules are by the wayside and life and death matters such as this unlikely scenario brings a different set of rules. Cold calculation based on chance of survival
@@jakemorrison8507 The video did ask us about the morality of what those men did, maybe in that vast expanse of water and nothingness, where starvation and death is a very real threat, what they did might be acceptable, but alas, they are back on the shores of friendly territories, and they are held accountable for their actions at sea, regardless of their unlikely scenario.
self defense?
The captain always volunteers if it comes to that.
Always.
“Jesus is the Everlasting Father with compassion for His children. He pities his children and shelters them with His love (Psalm 103:13). His mercy endures forever and you can anticipate his forgiveness with joy. Above all, these benefits are yours to enjoy for eternity, if only you surrender your life to Him” WHOA THATS GOOD! THANK YOU JESUS!
"I rejoiced with those who said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD.” -Psalm 122:1
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness." -Colossians 2:6-7
What’s the name of the music piece? Sounds like Chopin.
Jay B raindrop prelude I think
Saving 1= Idealist
Saving Many= Realist
Congrats, Captain Obvious. Stop watching fucking anime and do something with your life, internet loser. Probably living in a basement somewhere in middle America, a pockmarked 3/10
Apinity ExMachina The idea of how many will be saved is NOT real. Odds are are mental illusions. Reality is anything can happen including the unexpected (like another turtle or being saved as you are in the process of stabbing the cabin boy. The odds of going to prison (or death row) for canibalism would have been very realist!
Musa Issa How original.
@@mwamussa Look up, "ad hominem argument."
I guess it really depends. The idea of killing someone and eating them or them dying previously then eating them. The latter is obviously the easiest choice. I do think the murder of the cabin boy was slightly wrong however they did it to survive. A sacrifice had to be made even if it was a disgusting, arrogant and self serving one.
Yeah but when you look at the captains journal he had no remorse when talking about eating the boy. They’re jus murderers he knew not everyone would agree to doing a lottery in fear that they would be the ones who are chosen to be sacrificed so he got them all to gang up on the most vulnerable one without giving him a say in what the options could be. What they did was immoral and there’s no justification for it.
lo usaron como medio y no como fin, saad:(
It was obviously immoral.
There is no ethic at all, to sacrify other without his/her approval. But yes, Damien ones need to survive, at all costs, in any excuse.
How important the one, instead of the three? And vice versa, how importance the three, instead of the one?
Well, each one of them could cut their leg and eat it. And they all SURVIVE!!
They would bleed to death
@@jamalthompson2044 just use their clothes to tie their legs
i paper cut in those days was a death sentence, cutting his leg would kill him slowly and painfully
LIfeboat Ethics Variation
Survivors of an ocean liner sinking are on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Because of an error at launch, the lifeboat’s food stores were not filled and so there is very limited food and water on the boat. It There are 5 survivors:
The captain who is an expert seaman and navigator
A ship’s doctor who is trained in all manner of maritime survival medicine and who can use the available medical supplies to keep them alive
The ship’s chief engineer who can repair leaks and maintain the lifeboat and who says that he can given enough time get the lifeboat’s damaged radio beacon working
The ship’s chaplain who promises to beseech god for their rescue
You
Days pass and starvation and dehydration have set in. In order to maximize the use of the remaining supplies, one passenger must be thrown overboard. Everyone agrees to this choice. You have been given the responsibility to make this choice and you cannot select yourself. Who would you select?
people might say that since individual values conflict here, morality must be relative. this is false. the fact that there is a moral dilemma at all ensures the fact that there is a moral code we ought to shoot for
@@alexanderlamb8554 Does that moral code allow you to determine an answer to the dilemma?
@@CharlesB-NGNM whats the catch here ? Obviously the answer is the chaplain
Chuck the preacher overboard, god is on his side, he will make it.
An immoral person would have no trouble in murdering a cabin boy in the hope of saving his own skin. The fact is nobody can predict the future and know if a lifeboat will turn up or not. It is better to die with a clear conscience than to murder someone. This is why you can never trust an atheist in such a situation. An atheist views this situation as life or death with no moral consequences for his actions in an afterlife.
HAHAHAH
Roses.
fish fish fish fish fish
Ikr. That was a very poorly thought story. Why not fish? That's the ocean after all.
@@jovelnomits a real thing that happened
Murder.
I would save all the lives
Wait a minute...
There's this thing called fish. Guess their habitat.
Very poor story. Next time, try something better.