Ethics of Emergencies

Forums: Philosophy, Morality, Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

You are in the middle of an ocean with another person. They are floating on a plank that can only support one of you. You will drown soon if you don't take the plank from them. Being quite stronger than the other person you can easily take it from them but they will drown in turn. Your choices are to drown or to cause another person to drown by stealing from them. What is the right thing to do?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 10 • Views: 6,696 • Replies: 96

View best answer, chosen by Night Ripper

@Night Ripper,

drown

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Either one would be ethical. It is not clear that being on the plank will lead to survival or not. So in this case it is just their instinct to try to survive, how could you expect them to just drown and leave that option open, right in front of them.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Eventually, both will probably drown anyhow. The right thing to do would be for neither to float on the plank. Both could hold onto the plank and have an equal chance for survival.

0 Replies

Please don't try to sidestep the dilemma. You will survive if you take the plank. I'm stipulating that it is guaranteed.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

I am sidestepping nothing. You asked a question and I answered it. If you don't like the answer - too bad.

Given the restrictions you have placed on the question, I will say

DROWN

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Then why would you make that the example? Okay fine so it's not okay to to kill another person to save your life in a raw uncircumstancial example.

0 Replies

I don't see how anyone (in modern Western culture) would think that giving up your own life to save another is an immoral thing to do.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Yes but it also depends on circumstance. Would you kill someone who was very old or was likely to die soon anyways? To save your own life if you were 16 for example.

2 Replies

@Render,

According to Night Ripper, the question was black & white. Black & white answers have now been given. Makes no sense to now introduce shades of gray.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

It is impossible to imagine a situation completely black in white. So the answer comes with a bias on the shade of grey you see.

1 Reply

@Render,

It is only impossible if no imagination exists in the first place

1 Reply

@Render,

Quote:

Would you kill someone who was very old or was likely to die soon anyways? To save your own life if you were 16 for example.

You are changing the question...

The question "Would I kill someone who was very old..." has nothing to do with morality. People often act in immoral ways.

If you are asking "would it be moral to kill someone who is very old to save my own life", the answer (in my system of morality which I think is typical for any modern Western culture) is clearly "No". I don't consider it moral to take another life to save my own. The only possible exception is in cases of self-defense (and I am not even sure about that).

And the converse-- "would it be moral to give your own life to save the life of someone who is very old", the answer to this is clearly "Yes". You may argue that it is irrational or stupid, but it certainly is moral, in modern Western culture, giving up your life for another is celebrated.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

It is only impossible if no imagination exists in the first place

Exactly. There's not really a sensible answer to the question. It seems to be asking for a judgement on amorality. It doesn't work that way.

The conundrum points to the fact that the will is fundamentally amoral. And if we were sharks instead of humans, we wouldn't have philosophy.

There is no time when you don't know in your heart what is right.

1 Reply

My example contains all the information that there is to be had. The only difference between you and the other person is that they have a plank and you do not and that you can take the plank from them but they could not take it from you. There's no difference in age, race, religion or anything else. I'm trying to get at the core issue which is, are we morally obligated to die in such a situation?

3 Replies

@Arjuna,

I the only one who doesn't see a conundrum here?

Taking another persons life to save your own is clearly, and unquestionably, an immoral act. (Yes, that means that if there is no option except to take another person's life, then you are morally obligated to die.)

I don't see how there is any question here. This is a rare example of a black and white issue.

((This is odd for me, a moral relativist, to be arguing this way... but within a modern Western context, this is a simple straightforward , black and white, question)).

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

My example contains all the information that there is to be had. The only difference between you and the other person is that they have a plank and you do not and that you can take the plank from them but they could not take it from you. There's no difference in age, race, religion or anything else. I'm trying to get at the core issue which is, are we morally obligated to die in such a situation?

Yes

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

My example contains all the information that there is to be had.

Your example assumes information that would not be available to anyone in that position. It assumes someone would know that outcome with certainty. No such thing exists in the real world in a situation as ambiguous as the one you laid out.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
My example contains all the information that there is to be had.

Your example assumes information that would not be available to anyone in that position. It assumes someone would know that outcome with certainty. No such thing exists in the real world in a situation as ambiguous as the one you laid out.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Here's something else that's obvious. I'm not asking you to make a decision in that situation with imperfect knowledge. I'm asking you to make a decision from the comfort of your chair with perfect knowledge.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I the only one who doesn't see a conundrum here?

Taking another persons life to save your own is clearly, and unquestionably, an immoral act. (Yes, that means that if there is no option except to take another person's life, then you are morally obligated to die.)

I once had a dream in which someone was trying to kill me. What the dream left in my awareness was this moment when I knew that one of us would die... and I knew it wouldn't be me.

It's kind of like with the two-minute warning in football games... sometimes you can feel the spirit of the team rise at that point. It's will. Go Dolphins!

But anyway... I do kill for my own sake. I don't have the advantage of some vegetarians who don't think plants are really "alive." I've always known they are. My immune system is destroying bacteria on an on-going basis. If it wasn't, I'd be dead.

None of this is good or evil. It just is. I say all this with respect for your statement.... just to try to explain how my outlook is different. Very Happy

I so wish we had the dancing bannana emoticon.

1 Reply

Ethics of Emergencies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know