I've been reading a book called 'Would You Kill the Fat Man', which is about moral dilemmas. While reading this book I devised my own dilemma partially based upon a true story.
You're the captain of a ship in a lifeboat after your ship has sunk, and all your crew is starving. You do the only responsible thing, you tell everyone to enter a draw to decide who will be cannibalised (rather than just outright murdering someone), those that do not enter the draw will not get to feast (because they do not run the risk of being cannibalised). Only one person does not partake, and a rather large man gets the short straw. You all eat your fill, and it looks like you will reach civilisation with plenty of food to spare, but the one man is still left starving and won't make to land without food. What should you do?
Let him feed, or let him starve?
(The crew decides as the captain it is up to you to decide)
He should starve. The others risked their lives and got their reward, so it hardly seems fair that the one guy with guaranteed safety should get to partake in the reward.
"Well, you see, we were discussing what to do with our survival and I said 'The only way to be fair is to draw for lots'. Most of the other men decided to go with it, but Jenkins went crazy. He said he didn't want to risk getting carved up when there's a big man that'll feed us all right here, and then he attacked Bob! Well, we tried to wrestle him off but he'd stuck Bob in the gut and Bob broke his neck and tossed him into the drink. Well, there was only one thing for it. Bob wasn't going to make it and he realized that, in his rage, he'd thrown away a potential meat source. So as an apology, he offered himself up as soon as he passed on."
You know, on the sea, captain's word is law. He can marry people and he can exexute people under the right precident. A man getting uppity at a major stress point is bad for morale and insubbordination. You can even go as far as mutiny if you read his refusal as an attempt to subvert the crew against the captain.
You know, on the sea, captain's word is law. He can marry people and he can exexute people under the right precident. A man getting uppity at a major stress point is bad for morale and insubbordination. You can even go as far as mutiny if you read his refusal as an attempt to subvert the crew against the captain.
Well point of the hypothetical is less about justification of the action than the perceived morality of doing so. The only reason I made the man captain was so that the choice would fall to him (aka you) as opposed to the crew as a whole.
Edit: Presumably you are the one who built in the escape clause to allow people not to participate should they not wish to.
You know, on the sea, captain's word is law. He can marry people and he can exexute people under the right precident. A man getting uppity at a major stress point is bad for morale and insubbordination. You can even go as far as mutiny if you read his refusal as an attempt to subvert the crew against the captain.
Er, no, the captain has to follow the rules of whatever nation the vessel is registered under, whatever territory they are in, and possibly whatever nation he's a citizen of.
Starving people to death probably would break some of those laws.
You know, on the sea, captain's word is law. He can marry people and he can exexute people under the right precident. A man getting uppity at a major stress point is bad for morale and insubbordination. You can even go as far as mutiny if you read his refusal as an attempt to subvert the crew against the captain.
Er, no, the captain has to follow the rules of whatever nation the vessel is registered under, whatever territory they are in, and possibly whatever nation he's a citizen of.
Starving people to death probably would break some of those laws.
Hoo boy. You can say that NOW, but that's under the flag of a reasonable situation. You get any situation where the only true authority that can be used is that of the captain's and we'll see what gets followed. Especially if the captain is making one of those hard lesser-of-two-evil decisions where he has to do what's right for the men more than the man. I know what you're trying to say here, but what I'm saying is good luck making that stick when he's the captain and you're the one man.
Hoo boy. You can say that NOW, but that's under the flag of a reasonable situation. You get any situation where the only true authority that can be used is that of the captain's and we'll see what gets followed. Especially if the captain is making one of those hard lesser-of-two-evil decisions where he has to do what's right for the men more than the man. I know what you're trying to say here, but what I'm saying is good luck making that stick when he's the captain and you're the one man.
Hoo boy. You can say that NOW, but that's under the flag of a reasonable situation. You get any situation where the only true authority that can be used is that of the captain's and we'll see what gets followed. Especially if the captain is making one of those hard lesser-of-two-evil decisions where he has to do what's right for the men more than the man. I know what you're trying to say here, but what I'm saying is good luck making that stick when he's the captain and you're the one man.
I do like the setup where in order to survive, one person in the group must die. Also by not participating, it increased the chances of everyone else dying. This is a neat little core to base a dilemma around. Unfortunately, I can't vote in the poll.
My issue is that the events leading up to the dilemma undermine the decision. It assumes that the reader's morality is already fine with:
1. The act of Cannibalism.
2. Killing a person
3. The responsible course of action is a raffle.
It seems that the Captain subscribes to a type of Utilitarian morality. The other morality systems end up getting ditched. There is also a few things that remain vague. Does everyone contain the minimum nutritional value to reach civilization? Was there a possibility that two people might have to be eaten?
I wrote out another Dilemma that tried to keep the core moral quandaries. This is a fun topic.
The Devil forces a crew on a ship to participate in a raffle. You are part of the crew.
The rules are:
1. Anyone can opt out.
2. If your name is drawn, you die.
3. If everyone opts out, everyone dies.
4.a Folks who opt out die
4.b Folks who opt out won't die.
5. The captain gets to choose between Rule 4.a and Rule 4.b
6. Whether or not Rule 4 is observed depends on Rule 7.
7. Rule 7 will be revealed after The Raffle.
Events:
The captain chooses 4.a: He thinks people who don't run the risk shouldn't get rewarded.
One person opts out: He wants to see how things develop once all the cards are on the table.
The Fat Man's name is drawn.
The Devil kills the Fat Man.
The Devil reveals Rule 7: The group gets to decide if Rule 4 is ignored.
Woah, woah. He didn't choose to starve. He may have simply decided he wanted to live to see how everything played out once a person was killed. I don't think it's an enormous leap, that he believed that betting people would feed him were better odds than sticks.
I do like the setup where in order to survive, one person in the group must die. Also by not participating, it increased the chances of everyone else dying. This is a neat little core to base a dilemma around. Unfortunately, I can't vote in the poll.
My issue is that the events leading up to the dilemma undermine the decision. It assumes that the reader's morality is already fine with:
That's another issue that could be brought up. For the sake of argument we can remove the capitainsy from this and decide that its the crew's decision to draw straws, and you are an impartial observer who gets to decide whether the person who sits out lives or dies.
Were he utilitarian he would probably just outright sacrifice the weakest and/or oldest (aka person with least possible pleasure-value left).
Coakle said:
There is also a few things that remain vague. Does everyone contain the minimum nutritional value to reach civilization? Was there a possibility that two people might have to be eaten?
Not really relevant, the point is that the situation went as it did, and now you're in this situation with this decision to make. Presumably if one person wasn't enough, a second (still optional) raffle would be held.
Coakle said:
I wrote out another Dilemma that tried to keep the core moral quandaries. This is a fun topic.
The Devil forces a crew on a ship to participate in a raffle. You are part of the crew.
The rules are:
1. Anyone can opt out.
2. If your name is drawn, you die.
3. If everyone opts out, everyone dies.
4.a Folks who opt out die
4.b Folks who opt out won't die.
5. The captain gets to choose between Rule 4.a and Rule 4.b
6. Whether or not Rule 4 is observed depends on Rule 7.
7. Rule 7 will be revealed after The Raffle.
Events:
The captain chooses 4.a: He thinks people who don't run the risk shouldn't get rewarded.
One person opts out: He wants to see how things develop once all the cards are on the table.
The Fat Man's name is drawn.
The Devil kills the Fat Man.
The Devil reveals Rule 7: The group gets to decide if Rule 4 is ignored.
That works too, though generally with these things it is best to try keep it in as realistic a scenario as possible so that people find the situation vivid and potentially real, rather than alienating reality from the situation. Though admittedly my original one could probably use some clarification or editing to rule out the possibility of the issues you mentioned arising in the decision making.
Edit: Actually I think your dilemma missed something important, and that is that it is stated at the start of the 'game' that rule 4a will be used. Though then again that isn't exactly equivalent either, because there presumably was the possibility (though it didn't seem remotely likely) that the crew of my scenario would reach land before everyone starved.
Double Edit: If in the boat, the capitain decided your rule 4b would be used, who would enter the raffle? I think it is the assumption of the raffle that no one was willing to outright self-sacrifice in the first place, which is basically what 4b would allow.
Woah, woah. He didn't choose to starve. He may have simply decided he wanted to live to see how everything played out once a person was killed. I don't think it's an enormous leap, that he believed that betting people would feed him were better odds than sticks.
Woah, woah. He didn't choose to starve. He may have simply decided he wanted to live to see how everything played out once a person was killed. I don't think it's an enormous leap, that he believed that betting people would feed him were better odds than sticks.
Given a choice between definitely dying and having a chance of not dying, why wouldn't he take the chance? It's not that he's alright with cannibalism, but not murder. It's stated that the Fat Man commits suicide.
Do I have to force feed him against his wishes to keep him alive? Or does he have a change of heart? Does this change of heart occur when he's out of his mind with starvation?
You don't have to answer these questions. I'm just trying to justify why my cold, calculating one-man out idea isn't that crazy.
All that aside:
I respect trying to find a possible real-world moral dilemma. It's harder, but it also forces people to get invested in their actions. I was too lazy to come up with something better. The Devil is just so easy.
Woah, woah. He didn't choose to starve. He may have simply decided he wanted to live to see how everything played out once a person was killed. I don't think it's an enormous leap, that he believed that betting people would feed him were better odds than sticks.
Given a choice between definitely dying and having a chance of not dying, why wouldn't he take the chance? It's not that he's alright with cannibalism, but not murder. It's stated that the Fat Man commits suicide. Do I have to force feed him against his wishes to keep him alive? Or does he have a change of heart? Does this change of heart occur when he's out of his mind with starvation?
Well perhaps he miscalculated the hopes of getting back to land before having to cannibalise, or wasn't willing at the time to canniblise, or wasn't willing to possibly be the one who is cannibalised, all we know now is that he is willing to eat.
Coakle said:
You don't have to answer these questions. I'm just trying to justify why my cold, calculating one-man out idea isn't that crazy.
I'd feed him. It was selfish and cowardly of him to refuse to be part of the feeding pact, assuming he would nevertheless willingly eat the meat produced from the pact, but that's not enough of a reason to allow someone to needlessly die. Punishment for non-compliance seems pointless here, since the chances of the same situation arising with the same people again is minuscule, and so there's nothing lost here from offering mercy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
