The Overcrowded Lifeboat
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
30 comments:
I would have praised the captain.
It is exactly like chess. Life is like chess. Something/someone must be sacrificed, in order to benefit something/someone else, so I believe that what the captain did was an only option, and he should be credited for doing it, since he saved at least some lives. Even though I strongly believe that no man has the right to choose who lives or dies, or who starves or who becomes fat, or who becomes poor and who becomes wealthy, the captain acted in the only way possible, and the only drawback is that he will live with the fact that he chose who lived, and who died.
I would strongly take the captain's side, arguing that the fact that he was in such a dire situation, and that the only way to keep his white king (the boat), from losing against the black opponent (death), was to sacrifice a few pieces, in no particular rank, as long as the king survived. So, at the very minimum, he acted to save the king, which is something I find completely acceptable, only in this situation, therefore the only punishment he would recieve, is the fact that he is guilty of choosing who lived and died, thus I would not consider him as guilty in court, but guilty in conscience, which, to me, is the worst possible punishment, knowing that you have done something irreversible and bad.
Sometimes sacrifices must be done in order to gain that small probability, no matter how small.
Not guilty.
I agree with Mo. It may seem terrible that someone had to die for others to live, but it's better than everyone dying. In fact, it must have been really hard for the captain to make this decision since it requires someone to be morally gray to do something bad in the name of the greater good.
I guess that the jury did what they had to do. They punished someone who killed people. It might have resulted badly if they let it slide, as then the lines between what's acceptable and what isn't might have blurred. Like I said you really have to be morally gray to see what the captain did as the right thing to do it that sort of situation. Unless someone I cared about died in that accident because of the captain's actions (because then my judgment would not be clear) I wouldn't fire the captain for what he did, because he ultimately chose the lesser evil.
The captain did what he could to save lives, even at the dispense of some.
I would praise him, and admire him for taking this heavy burden upon his shoulders. It is not easy to make such decisions, especially when people's lives have to do with it. Imagine what he went through, looking those people in the eyes, and telling them that they have to be sacrificed and drown to save the rest. The captain had no choice, it was either this, or to have all of them lost at sea to death..
He IS responsible for the death of a few people, and he would have to live with that for the rest of his life. He'd have to wake up screaming every night hearing the people's cries as they drowned, he would be haunted until he dies. In my opinion, that is punishment enough, so if I was part of the jury, I would have voted 'not guilty'.
The man was a hero. They just have to see that. They should try being put into his shoes. Let's see what they would do. >.>
But what if, as a teenager, it was decided that you were one of the weaker ones on board and therefore you had to go? :)
- Or, for that matter, your younger brother or sister - or aged grandmother - or handicapped father?
(Anyone thinking of the The Dark Knight scenario? :)
As I said up, unless someone I cared about died because of the captain, I'd say not guilty. People cannot be trusted to make a rational decision when strong emotions are involved. If the captain hadn't thrown them out, everyone would have died and then the jury would blame nature and try to find someone/something to pin the blame on. Here they just have an object to hate. And if i were thrown out, I'd die very bitter and feeling betrayed. But if I did stay we wouldn't have enough power to row and all of us would die anyways. In that case, I'd feel the weight of the other people's deaths crushing me, so it would again be an awful feeling before dying. It's all fine and well saying this while I'm just imagining it, but no one can tell what I'd actually do if I was involved in some way in this story.
In either case, the captain shouldn't have been fired, but he did, because it brought some kind of justice and in the end that's how the world works.
firstly if i am part of the jury I can not and should not have any personal involvement in the case otherwise definitely my judgement would be irrational as emotions would blur the facts! looking at only facts I can clearly state that the captain is one who is emotionally and mentally a strong person!! if i was in that situation i would most probably let everyone stay on the boat and just be hopeful that by some miracle the rescue team would come soon but facts state that they were only rescued after DAYS which means that the captains decision was right or else in about 2 to 3 days the boat was bound to capsize! so although he played God in the case of those who died he also played God in the case if those who survived so why are we forgetting that?? I'm most probably not a strong person and therefore all credit goes to the captain as he took a decision and that's what matters!!! maybe he was the miracle for those who survived and for those who didn't well if he hadn't taken a decision they all would have died anyways!!
Sir,
The story shows that the weak people left the boat to die for the others, so they understood the situation that they were in. If I were weak, lets say I had a severe internal injury, then, unwillingly, I would sacrifice myself to save the others, because, overall, the only way for at least some out of the 30 people to survive, was if some were thrown off. It is a hard situation, but, considering my chances of survival, and the other stronger people's chances, then I would come to realise that it would make no sense to stay on the boat, when I have a very high chance of dieng on the way, therefore, I might aswell help in the best way I can, by sacrificing myself, knowing that even if I dont get thrown off, doctors might not be able to heal me in time.
If it was someone in my family, then I would offer myself instead of them, and, if that did not work, then there would be no choice but to sacrifice them, only because the situation demands it, if anyone is to survive, but, since I am sitting here comfortably on my laptop, my mind is clear and aware of the situation, but, out there on that boat, I am not sure what my choice would be, like Kris said.
It is a desperate situation, but, in the end, I think I would see the single choice, but only after much consideration and tears, if it was my family.
If I was the captain here's my way.
"All men who wish to not go on any longer please commit suicide. The rest shall continue"
Everyone wins then. I wouldn't wanna be a killer, even if I'm killing for good i'm still just as much of a ass for killing in the first place.
It's why and eye for a eye is bad, The other dude is a Idiot but you don't need to be more of a idiot to be a idiot like him all so you can feel satisfied that your even.
And choosing the weak would be wrong (For reasons that we can figure out ourselves)
So no throwing people over should not be done instead you keep living and do your damn best to row that boat out of there even if it kills ya.
Wow.... I just saved a bunch of lives at the possible expense of mine and I'm a Misanthrope.... (Even Greater Dilemma)
Well, if I had to go, then that sucks, but I suppose that's how it works. If he considers me as one of the weak people on the boat, I would try to prove that I have the strength and the right to stay on the boat.
If I am still unable to convince him, then I guess, it's goodbye for me?:S (im a swimmer though so i can drift onto a piece of wood or something...and then get eaten by sharks..yay.) (A)
If it was one of my family though, I'd prefer to jump over instead of them. Knowing them, we'd probably fight over who gets to stay, I'd get called 'stupid' for wanting to die and 'trying to be a dumb hero", and so on. Tears will be shed, but in the end, someone HAS to go, but the thing is, we have to understand that there was no choice, and the captain just did what he could do. Bitterness will ensue, and the captain shall remain hated, but if people look past that, they'd see the captain in a totally different light.
Firstly, it was quite pathetic of the captain to think he was in any position to choose who should live and who doesn't. Who is he to decide who should be thrown out? His job is to try his level best to keep every passenger on board safe, whether weak or strong, old or young. By trying to lighten the weight of the boat, he was only trying to save himself the trouble of having to work much harder to reach safety. It is much obviously easier to save 7 people as opposed to 30.
To me, the captain's act was one of cowardice and utter disrespect to captaincy. When one takes up a job like this, they take up the responsibilities that come along. If in the face of difficulties you choose to make the task easier for yourself by throwing people off your lifeboat instead of fulfilling your duties and attempting to rescue as many people as possible, then why take up the job in the first place? Don't do it if you can't do it right.
If I was a passenger, and if the scoundrel even LOOKED towards my 5 year old sister, he would meet a faith he would wish and beg to trade with death instead. :)
If I were part of the jury, I would most definitely strip the captain of his licence, because he doesn't deserve to be doing a job he isn't capable of doing. The fact that they all survived means that there was a possibility for them to do so. Had he thrown them off, many innocent lives could have been lost at the hands of an incompetent captain.
who should live and who shouldn't. *
WAIT!
I just re-read! So he DID throw some people out. :O
It's called 'survival of the fittest'! But for this to happen, everyone must at least be given the CHANCE to survive.
What did he learn in all those years of training?!
I think what the captain did was right because if he hadn’t done that then everyone would have died….so its better if some lives are saved rather than all of them dying.
BUT if I had to go…that sucks….ummmmm….I don’t know then may be me dying would save lives so I just die.
*so its better if i die..
I guess he did what he thought was best in the particular situation. I do not think that it was justice to punish the captain for his actions. Even though numerous, irreplacable lives were lost, some survived and that is what matters.
However, rationally thinking, it would have been a cruel action to commit, not to mention that he nor anybody else would have the authority to decide who should live so that others may perish. Though, not experiencing this particular situation (thankfully!!) prevents me from passing on judgement as for all I know I could be capable of doing the same thing...
Moreover, I do like to believe that some things might happen for a reason and that maybe one or more of those handful of people saved could in turn do something to save countless of other lives or discovering/inventing something that could benefit humankind or even shape our future.
So no one really knows why these things occur, but when faced with these situations, the choices made could have either dire consequences or honourable rewards. :p
Well truth be told, as terrible as his idea was, he had a noble reason behind it, if he couldnt save everyone he wanted to atleast save SOME people and his criteria for who stays was also right. But, on the other hand, if it were someone i was emotionally tied to, i'd never let him get away with it and that's a whole other scenerio. But as a jury that is impartial and was actually not IN the situation, i would say that his idea was noble and he thought of something most people wouldn't have the courage to, i would applaud him.
This really is a tough one. Had I been a member of the jury, I'd find it extremely hard to decide, because no matter what this captain does, someone will have to die.
However, letting go of the "weak" people, the ones who most desperately need help sounds pure evil, especially that the captain himself would stay in the boat, sacrificing lives to save his own.
But who can be rational in such a situation, right?
Had I been a member of that jury, I'd find him guilty. To me, it makes more sense to let go of some strong and some weak people in hope that the string will lead the weak to shore if possible, since the disembarking of a handful is necessary. But for letting go all the weak go, I must say "Guilty".
A situation I hope I do not come across!
To lighten the load, I would request for all men ages 18 and over to rough it out in the ocean, and allow all women, children and old aged people to stay on board. If the load is still too heavy, I would have to make a cruel decision of asking the old aged men to come off board or perhaps even the young boys around the ages of 16.
I make this decision because men/boys in general have more chance of surviving in rough conditions than women unless the women on board were professional swimmers/divers, which I think would be highly unlikely!
The captain had no right to give himself the power to choose! He was the idiot that ran them ino the iceberg anyway!
It was noble of him to accept the burden that a life was lost because of him for the sake of others...but there were other ways. The people on the boat made a good argument and maybe it would have worked, but like in a democracy, it was the majority that mattered to the captain, not the minority.
I would find him not guilty, but I would not praise him. I would congratulate him on being able to think of a near-rational decision in a time of chaos and being able to act upon it but THAT'S ALL. I don't want to promote the idea that the majorty is always more important than the minority.
the captain should not choose who gets thrown over. i think first their should be people who would sacrifice themselves. most-likely it would not be a lot of people i'm sure,in which that case there needs to be some sort of compromise made. Perhaps he should even throw himself over.
Has anybody asked themselves this question: If the captain did not "play God", then who will? If he has no right to decide who to live or die, then who has the authority to do so? Would you rather have all of them dead than having a few survive? Based on the article, it seemed that there was no other choice left.
If the single symbol of leadership (the captain) had been disregarded / died, then the people left on the boat would end up going all "Lord Of the Flies" on each other. Everyone would be only concerned for themselves, and wouldn't give a damn about how the others survived. Heck, they'd probably be doing the pushing themselves.
The captain was put into the position to keep order over everything,regardless of the situation. Take him away, or strip him off his power, and hell breaks lose. Sometimes, though you dont like the rules, you have to swallow the bitter pill, and trust the judgement of the person who in charge.
:)
*is
Not Guilty! The captain had his reasons for why he had to throw some people off. It was basically the survival of the fittest. I totally agree with Mo and Kris, the captain was in dire straits and the only way he could think of saving others was this idea. I dont think any one else was fit enough to come up with another idea but just argue. If someone I cared about died, my opinion for the captain wouldn't have been clear. However he chose the option of saving some peoples lives rather than killing everyone.
not guilty. this doesnt mean i agree with his decisions. i definately think he was selfish on his part, but there are lots of people who would have reacted the same way he did if they were in his position.
we dont know what the captains life was like. he could possibly have young children at home who need him and so he was fighting as hard as he could to survive.
also, if there was anyone who was courageous enough to give up their lives under their own choices then i would not have stopped them if i were under those circumstances of being on that boat.
i also just realised. doesnt the saying go 'the captain go down with the ship'. so why on earth is he on that lifeboat? :O
Personally if i was a survivor, or a relative of a survivor then i would praise the captain. on the other hand if i was a relative of the people who lost their lives then i would be angry and dissapointed and would question his descision and his right to choose and would ask for a death penalty for the captain.
weeker or stronger...really no body has the right to descide who should survive. In a moment of crisis, sometimes the weakest becomes strong and the strongest sometimes crumble.
Not guilty. When faced with a situation like this, I think it was quite brave and admirable of the captain to even come up with the idea.
Somethings better than nothing - Some survivors are better than none, hence I support what he did. He did not have much of a choice. True, he was no one to decide who stays and who goes - but if he didn't make the decisions, who would? He was in charge, he was the captain. He was probably the only person on that life boat who could keep his cool.
Ofcourse, it is wrong for him to have said that the weaker people should go overboard, but it was only the logical thing to do at the time. If I was considered one of the weaker ones and there were people I loved on that boat, striving to live because they actually could do it whereas I know I wouldnt be able to then I would definitely go over, and atleast let them survive, because sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice what you have for the people you love.
And if they really didn't want to listen to the captain, they could've all ganged up on him and thrown HIM overboard..:P
No one has the right to decide about the lives of people. The captain should not have decide to throw the weak overboard, their fault only being that they were weak. I would have sentenced the captain for life imprisonment. He should have let all people remain in the boat and let fate decide their future. sacrificing some people for the sake of other people is clear murder. I would never support the captain.
Post a Comment