Lifeboat ethics

[sean]

I just bumped into an interesting ethical thought experiment.

 

You are the captain of a ship. The ship has gone down. Now there are 10 people in a lifeboat, including yourself. But only 7 can fit. You are the only one that can properly navigate the boat to safety. You have to decide which three people to throw out or all 10 will die. How do you make this decision? What criteria do you use to make this decision? Why? Can you think of sets of people in which this decision would be very easy? How about setups in which it would be excruciatingly difficult?

 

It's a wisdom question, in the sense that there is no real answer, but holding on to it contemplatively continues to unfold insight.

 

Off the top of my head, stream of consciousness here's how I would approach the decision. First I would think about my actual ability to enforce my decision. If there is a six foot, ripped boxer on board and he's an asshole and probably in the overboard category but he is going to fight me and possibly throw me overboard (killing me and inevitably everyone else), then obviously this is consideration. So my first consideration would be who can I actually physically get overboard? This might lead to another layer of complexity, such as keeping a group of three friends onboard that I know will help enforce my decision to throw the boxer off, even though one of the friends I think is somewhat despicable. But if I throw the friend, the other two are less willing to help me chuck the boxer, and the boxer is the biggest lowlife on the ship.

 

At the same time, I would be prioritizing who I most want on and off based on who could be helpful or a hindrance in returning us to safety. For example in case we were to get into trouble and I were to become injured and need help navigating, or if I knew I needed to steer us to a remote island and there was a hunter on board, or an expert on edible wildlife. And conversely I'd be thinking, who might hinder our return to safety, starting fights, eating to much food, panicking and lowering morale, etc.

 

One thing that would definitely put someone in the onboard category would be if I had a positive personal relationship with them. Liking someone personally would most definitely make it very difficult for me to throw them over, even if I thought they were close to the worse hindrance to the safety of the mission. If there were female lovers of mine, damn, I think logic would start taking a serious backseat.

 

Next to personal relationships, I think the next most important criteria would be the person's ability, in reality or as a perceived potential, to positively impact the world, and who, in reality or potential, may most negatively impact the world (this would include just taking up space and consuming ).

 

I think the rest of the decision making would mostly just be me feeling through the details of the situation, probably entering into silence, praying and using my intuition to make a final decision.

 

Setups that would be easy. 6 boddhisatvas and 3 meth addict rapists in their 50's. Setups that would be very difficult. All 9 are family and friends.

 

How about y'all?

 

Sean

[affenbrot]

It's a wisdom question

 

I would say this is a SICK question. How come you are interested in dealing with it?

 

but here my solution: if you look closer and sustain your panic you will find that all ten people are quite skinny

so you try and hey the boat can hold ten people after all. on your journey you find out that one of the boddhisattvas is a bigot and the meth addict a former captain of the navy who helps you navigate savely to the shore

[sean]

I don't think it's sick. I think it's a very good situation to contemplate because it forces you to discern the actual, messy, imperfect details of your present ethical hierarchy which aids your ability to morally problem solve in the real world. It's one thing to have this perfectly ideal system of ethics, never hurt a worm, love all beings, make no judgements, we are all children of God jumping rope on a fluffy cloud. But I think this ethical situation is actually a metaphor for the difficulty present in actually applying ethics in our everyday life. In other words, what charity do you give money to? Which ones don't you? What line of work do you seek? Why? Is this primarily for your own personal fulfillment, for others? Which others? Why? In what ways do you sacrifice some of your values for other values? How do you organize your values to make a difficult decision? Etc, etc.

 

Try to answer the question the way it was framed affenbrot. I think it will be a good thought experiment for you, precisely because you hate it so much.

 

Sean

[Cameron]

It's sort of like this afternoon this hottie was inches away from me exposing nice, tan breasts and cleavage and I just wanted to melt right into them and then she turns around and her ass crack is showing.

 

And I am sitting there coughing all over the place and sneezing and just have NO focus.

 

It's just like that! What do you do in that kind of moment? You think your a cool guy and then when you have such a clear opportunity to score you drop the ball because you sick and getting a woman is the last thing on your mind in the moment because of it!

 

Actually, it's not like that at all..is it!

 

*sips tea*

[affenbrot]

I don't think it's sick. I think it's a very good situation to contemplate because it forces you to discern the actual, messy, imperfect details of your present ethical hierarchy which aids your ability to morally problem solve in the real world. It's one thing to have this perfectly ideal system of ethics, never hurt a worm, love all beings, make no judgements, we are all children of God jumping rope on a fluffy cloud. But I think this ethical situation is actually a metaphor for the difficulty present in actually applying ethics in our everyday life. In other words, what charity do you give money to? Which ones don't you? What line of work do you seek? Why? Is this primarily for your own personal fulfillment, for others? Which others? Why? In what ways do you sacrifice some of your values for other values? How do you organize your values to make a difficult decision? Etc, etc.

 

Try to answer the question the way it was framed affenbrot. I think it will be a good thought experiment for you, precisely because you hate it so much.

 

Sean

 

this situation does not allow to contemplate ethics. It is a pure reptilian live or die decision. That's why I labeled it "sick". The only solution that would make sense to me is to re-frame this claustrophic situation and see what other possibilities arise...

 

affenbrot

 

p.s. didn't you recommend a book by the title "refuse to choose" ?

[Lozen]

This response is gonna piss you off Sean, but I'd save all the children (girls first, then boys) and then the women (esp. pregnant women).

[freeform]

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by freeform

[affenbrot]

1) I'd say "Hey everyone! - If this boat is to get started I need a few of you to jump out, and push from the back!" The ones that jump out are too stupid to survive anway, so I'd leave them.

i like that one, that's really mean!

[Mushtaq Ali]

This response is gonna piss you off Sean, but I'd save all the children (girls first, then boys) and then the women (esp. pregnant women).

 

Da nzho, he indeh dii?

 

Why that order?

Edited April 1, 2006 by Mushtaq Ali

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[Lozen]

Killing children is wrong, in my book. Women are the bearers of children.

 

Would you pick a different order? Save the men and throw the women and children to the sea? Just a question.

 

Da nzho, he indeh dii?

 

Why that order?

[Mushtaq Ali]

Killing children is wrong, in my book. Women are the bearers of children.

 

Would you pick a different order? Save the men and throw the women and children to the sea? Just a question.

 

What makes you think that there are children, or women on the lifeboat?

 

Is it more or less wrong than killing men?

 

I like to think I am clever enough that I would find a way to save everyone. The idea that you "have" to throw three people off the boat is a false dilemma.

 

You didn't answer my other question "he indeh dii?" (which means "are you Apache" ) I just ask because of your name.

[Lozen]

Yes, I think it is more wrong to kill women and children than it is to kill men. I think it would be even more wrong to sink the ship and kill everyone while trying to be heroic. I don't know if there are women or children on the lifeboat or not, neither do you...

 

No, I'm not Apache. I'm Israeli.

[Yoda]

I'd just lay out the situation for everyone and see what happens. I'd be okay with whatever course of action we all decided on. Hopefully, I had retention based sex recently--that would be a plus. If I definitely was going to die, I'd challenge myself to do something odd before I went, but I'd have to make that call in the moment. Drowning actually might be a way cool way to go, btw. Just like dudes who die by hanging seem to blow about a quart of sperm, this might not be so bad. My brother says that there's a suicide forum out there where they debate and study the best ways to go. It sounds nice and contemplative. Might even sungaze. In case of shark attack, that would probably be more drowning than blood loss, so the same megagasm might still be in play.

[Mushtaq Ali]

Yes, I think it is more wrong to kill women and children than it is to kill men. I think it would be even more wrong to sink the ship and kill everyone while trying to be heroic. I don't know if there are women or children on the lifeboat or not, neither do you...

 

(note to self, do not let this person have any life and death choices about you)

 

Yes, I think it is more wrong to kill women and children than it is to kill men.

 

Why?

 

I think it would be even more wrong to sink the ship and kill everyone while trying to be heroic

 

Do you think that it would be less wrong to save everyone by being a good problem solver? Why is it heroic to save everyone and not heroic to save seven of ten?

 

I don't know if there are women or children on the lifeboat or not, neither do you

 

No, but their gender matters less to me than their humanity/inwardness does, so it is not an issue.

 

No, I'm not Apache. I'm Israeli.

 

So how did an Israeli end up with an Apache name?

[sean]

Heh, Lozen, I'm not sensitive about how you answer this. I think the only thing you could say that would upset me would be that, without hesitation you would throw me off the boat first thing, no questions asked.

 

I think it's fun to try to be creative and clever with this thought experiment, and imagine how we can save all 10 people, or how we can think outside the box and change the rules. It's a contrived, imaginary situation that would probably never happen in reality. The point is that it's actually a meditation practice to get you to go inside, put yourself in this situation and actually feel through how you would make this difficult decision if this is how you were to have to. I answered the questions from a very survival oriented mindset at first true, but it's not the only space you can go into or the only way to answer, obviously.

 

Lozen, what about another layer of complexity. What if there is a brilliant political activist on board that is making profound, utopian changes to an entire nation's political structure, helping finally relieve racism, opression, and injustice in, let's say, an area that's been war torn for hundred of years. Would you throw over a brain damaged child for a women like this? Would you throw over a virulently anti-semitic, pregnant wife of a KKK leader for a man like this?

 

Sean

[Cameron]

Do we have life vest? If we have lifevests throw a couple people over and just drag them. If there are no life vests throw over whoevers responsibilty it was to make sure we had life vests.

 

If it was my(The Captains) responsibilty, realize you have done a bad job and wish them good luck before jumping into the great blue.

 

If no one else is able to navigate at all, throw over the oldest people, regardless of sex.

 

I love old people but your not giving me much to work with here! LOL.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Cameron

[sean]

Oh yes, and this is a sensitive topic. Let's try to create a container of the utmost mutual respect in this thread. I'd like it if we tried extra hard to speak to each other reverently on this one. This isn't a debate. I don't want to put people on trial for their responses. We are just exploring a complicated moral space here. Feeling out our own and each other's ethical textures. Respectfully inquiring deeper with compassion. Trusting that there is an inherent wisdom to each of our responses based on where each of us our at in our lives, and the past that's led us here. Stuff like that.

 

Sean

[Smile]

Now there are 10 people in a lifeboat, including yourself. But only 7 can fit.

If they are all IN the lifeboat, why do you need to throgh some off the boat?

If some of them hang off the boat, set up times to take turns and switch them with other people.

There will be debries from the ship (there are always debries from the sunken ship) and you can get together some to build a support for the lifeboat or to make something completely new to support 3 others. Use clothes as ropes to tie stuff together.

 

But your question is not about how you can save all the people- your question is about who you decide to terminate. Feeling ok?

Edited April 1, 2006 by Smile

[sean]

But your question is not about how you can save all the people- your question is about who you decide to terminate. Feeling ok?

Yes, this question sucks. That much is clear. It forces us out of the safety of our causal fantasies that we are beings of unconditional love, free of judgement and asks us to dig into our imperfect souls and find our dirty, personal, selfishly stained responses to a terrible, horribly contrived situation. Try it.

 

Heh, but maybe I am doing the equivalent of finding some leftovers in the fridge, tasting them and realizing they are nasty and then going around to everyone saying, OMG this is so gross you need to taste this.

 

Sean

[Lozen]

M.A.,

 

1. I already answered the question.

 

2. Sean said that you have to decide which three people to throw out or all 10 will die. In that case, I would think it would not less than heroic to pretend that this was not the case, thereby killing everybody.

 

3. It's my life boat, not yours, so why are you so concerned with my responses?

 

4. It's not my name.

 

Sean,

I'll think about that!!!!!

 

Universal and all that.

xo

[Pietro]

Thanks for the question really nice, we should have more.

Sophie's Choice comes to mind.

 

Here are my answers:

 

If the people are the only survivors on earth and from then it depends the destiny of all the next generations you will want to keep the women. Provided they are between 12 and 30 y.o. Boys should go, so should all the male less the youngest among those one who knows all is necessary to pass on the tradition-knowledge. Women canmot make a man of a boy. Of course anybody who is the only person to know a non replacable skill should survive to. And if you think that women are getting unfairly off the hook think about what their role will be once the people are back in an island.

 

If there are no external pressures (no one is fundamentally necessary for the community), you can start by letting die whoever desires so. Generally people with a higher spiritual practice will be more willing to go, unless they feel there is something fundamental they need to do.

 

If you have rapist and bodhisatva. I will keep the rapist and possibly one bodhisatva. The others can go as they can get a new body in any case when they want, where they want. You don't want to kill the rapist as they are the ones who will have a harder time after death.

 

Among psichologically enlightened individuals the best situation is to discuss all together and who feels has completed his/her ming goes. I know a relative of mine who would jump at the occasion. Yet you might want to keep a spiritual technician to make sure everybody does not get fixated too long on what has happened.

 

And no, I don't think the question is sick. It seem exactly the right question to develop your own morality, ethics.

 

I conclude with a true story:

 

 

Africa, few years ago. Someplace after a big disaster (war?). Ruanda? The plane arrives and drops food on a camp of refugees. A 30 y.o. man takes away the food from a kid and an old man and starts eating it. The local voluntary stops him. The man answers:

"there is not enough food for more than one person to survive. If the old man survives he will be too old to teach our tradition, or to have kids once the war is over. If the young boy survives he will be strong to make kids, but he will ignore his tradition and will just become another slave of America's capitalism. I am young enough to have kids and I know our tradition, so I can pass it on. Thus I should be the one to survive."

The volunteer left the food to him.

[Lozen]

Killing children is always wrong, I guess I feel that this is a pretty black and white thing. I know that there are circumstances when one might need to kill a child (like if the kid has a gun to his head or something) but everyone I know who has talked to someone who has killed a child has said that they are spiritually scarred because of it-- in a way that is different and much more drastic than if they have killed an adult.

[Smile]

Yes, this question sucks. That much is clear. It forces us out of the safety of our causal fantasies that we are beings of unconditional love, free of judgement and asks us to dig into our imperfect souls and find our dirty, personal, selfishly stained responses to a terrible, horribly contrived situation. Try it.

Sean,

There is no way to answer this unless you are experiencing it first hand and have the whole picture of what can and can't be done. For example, we can talk about war all we want but we can never know what we would do while being in one. We can make up ideas based on our feelings and beliefs, but that's the limit.

 

And to answer this question, I may say I tell everybody about the problem and voluntier myself after briefly explaining how to control such a 'complicated' machinery as a lifeboat. Then i would think about how to survive and help to survive other two. But that's all bullshit because there are so many other possibilities that the whole question can come out to be an exersise of having too much time on your hand that could be better spent doing (or not doing) something else.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Smile

[Mushtaq Ali]

M.A.,

 

1. I already answered the question.

 

Really? Sorry, I must have missed it.

 

2. Sean said that you have to decide which three people to throw out or all 10 will die. In that case, I would think it would not less than heroic to pretend that this was not the case, thereby killing everybody.

 

Personally, though I like Sean, I have never felt the need to give his take on "the rules" more credence than my own.

 

What's that saying? "I reject your reality and substitute my own". While you may not be able to save all ten that does not mean it can't be done. Nor does it mean that if you did sacrifice three the other seven would make it.

 

3. It's my life boat, not yours, so why are you so concerned with my responses?

 

Because, since it's your boat, if you can't find a way to save everyone, I am going to have to decide the best way to dump you overboard.

 

Nothing happens in a vacuum. It is one thing to make a life and death decision about someone else, it is another thing to enforce that decision.

 

Or did you mean why did I respond to your initial post rather than someone else's? That was for two reasons.

 

1. I found your responses interesting and wanted to know more.

 

2. You are going under an Apache name. I had wondered/hoped that you might be Indeh.

 

4. It's not my name.

 

Why do you use it then? She is a rather important person where I come from, but not well known elsewhere. I have to wonder why a Magaani would use the name, especially one from a country where it is unlikely that very many people have heard of her.

 

No offense meant though, I am just a curious sort, and I had a momentary hope that you might have been from my neck of the woods.