Poll: A Tricky Moral Dilemma

[lacktheknack]

I would never draw up the rules like that.

If someone else did, and it came to a vote, I'd vote that he eat some. Nothing tough about it. The only thing at stake is the rule-maker's integrity, and if you're still clinging to that after cannibalizing someone, well...

 

[SinisterGehe]

Well... I would feed him because if I wouldn't I would end up killing him with starvation. Also why would you let the rest rot and watch him suffer in hunger - that doesn't even make sense. Even animal let the sick and elderly to eat from the hunt, they just eat the leftovers. Even if they didn't take part in the hunt.
And when it comes to survival nothing is more important than other people (Something that DayZ and other zombie survival player needs to understand - along with the game developers). More people you have when you get a problem higher the change is that you can find a way to solve it. Even if it is the problem about keeping the "future crop" fresh.

Not feeding him makes no sense and is something that even animals don't do. I hold the philosophy of staying human till the very last moment of my sanity. (I don't consider having no sanity being alive/human - for sanity is the meta of humanity. That what makes us able to achieve greater and greater accomplishments and construct great wonders. What can be considered sane is tied to the culture surrounding the humanity)

 

[skywolfblue]

there are only two factors i will consider, because i see myself as a fairly decent human being:

1) we have more than enough food for ourselves, and some spare
2) there is a starving man there

i would consider deliberately starving a man when you have the means to feed him (with no cost to yourself) nothing short of murder

/Agree.

The person who refused had every right to do so. And now there is extra, and that person can be saved.

Having the means and the ability to save someone, but choosing not to because of grudges/pacts/etc, is a very deliberate act of murder.

It's like purposefully letting someone bleed out on the operating table when you could have easily saved them, because you didn't like them.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

That's a good question. To an extent, he deserves to starve, because he didn't risk his life like everyone else. But once you've got an excess of food and someone who is definitely going to die...I'd probably let him eat, if only out of respect to the man who died and whose body would go to waste otherwise.

 

[Call me Baz]

He gets the bits that no one else wants to eat - probably the lungs, genitals, brain, etc. I don't want him to die but I'll be damned if he takes those prime cuts from the people that were willing to take the risk.

He can eat, but not feast

 

[wulf3n]

That's a good question. To an extent, he deserves to starve, because he didn't risk his life like everyone else. But once you've got an excess of food and someone who is definitely going to die...I'd probably let him eat, if only out of respect to the man who died and whose body would go to waste otherwise.

I dunno. If I were the guy who died I'd find it disrespectful [you know, If I weren't dead] that this person was able to bypass all the risk yet still benefit.

 

[Someone Depressing]

You're in the clear. You're inches from society. You're no longer an animal; you did what was right, ect ect ect. You'd have to do the right thing and feed him.

Besides, if a really fat person entered... well, why would they? They're really fat. That's the point of storing that.

 

[JimB]

If I were the guy who died I'd find it disrespectful (you know, if I weren't dead) that this person was able to bypass all the risk yet still benefit.

I have two problems with this line of thinking. The first is that basing life and death decisions based on how you'd feel in an impossible scenario (how you'd feel if you were dead and thus unable to feel) makes roughly as much sense to me as declaring that it would be immoral for anyone to stand within five thousand feet of you because if you had magical powers to erect a mansion covering that entire radius, then you would do so and those people would be in your way. The other is that you seem to think it's more important that you not feel disrespected than that another person continue to live, which I find a very messed-up priority.

 

[blazearmoru]

Everyone knows the set rules. I would let the man eat because the option is there but I wouldn't condemn anyone's choice not to feed the man... So I would probably set a vote instead of deciding and if the vote happens to be a tie, I cast mine for feeding, otherwise starve.

However, a third option would be some sort of "I owe you" system so it's not a free ride without cost.

Though I think it's immortal NOT to save the person. I also think it's immoral to feed him out of your own whim due to the fact that *everyone* knew the rules however, I believe the rules are imperfect and ought to be changed to something along the lines of : "Others may partake on feeding ONLY if there is sufficient amount for everyone and they are on the last of the priority list." and so some weight has to be put on the rule maker here.

Still, this feels like an insufficient information problem as we do not know anything else and that information is not trivial. Saving a person ISN'T just saving the person, it is saving that person's future which influences everything. That is not a trivial matter.

 

[floppylobster]

Weird set up. What happened to fishing? Or sea birds? Or how about, first person to die of starvation gets eaten? As for the man, how about you ask him if he wants to be fed? And what are you going to feed him? I thought you only had the meat of the fat man? So maybe he still doesn't want to eat it on principal.

 

[wulf3n]

If I were the guy who died I'd find it disrespectful (you know, if I weren't dead) that this person was able to bypass all the risk yet still benefit.

I have two problems with this line of thinking. The first is that basing life and death decisions based on how you'd feel in an impossible scenario (how you'd feel if you were dead and thus unable to feel) makes roughly as much sense to me as declaring that it would be immoral for anyone to stand within five thousand feet of you because if you had magical powers to erect a mansion covering that entire radius, then you would do so and those people would be in your way. The other is that you seem to think it's more important that you not feel disrespected than that another person continue to live, which I find a very messed-up priority.

Firstly I never said or implied that my respect is more important than another's life, just that idea that given the person food is "respecting" the deceased and their sacrifice isn't necessarily the case.

Secondly regarding you're first point, it's more about how you'd feel if you were to know what was going to be done with your sacrifice. Would the Fat Guy have been willing to kill himself for the greater good if he'd known participation in the "lottery" wasn't compulsory to eat.

 

[JimB]

Firstly I never said or implied that my respect is more important than another's life, just that idea that given the person food is "respecting" the deceased and their sacrifice isn't necessarily the case.

True. My mistake.

Secondly, regarding your first point, it's more about how you'd feel if you were to know what was going to be done with your sacrifice.

I don't care. I do not care about the feelings of dead people when those imaginary feelings are being used to justify the death of another person.

 

[wulf3n]

I don't care. I do not care about the feelings of dead people when those imaginary feelings are being used to justify the death of another person.

So essentially what you're saying is it's ok to lie to someone to convince them to kill themselves in order to save someone else, because hey they're dead they don't feel anymore. Ignoring the fact that that action itself is arguably murder.

The current dilemma only exists because the guy who opted out essentially did what the others are doing to him now.

 

[FoolKiller]

Let him starve and then get rid of the evidence so you aren't held accountable for "crimes" while on the life boat.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Kick him off your crew after you land if you must but don't force the man to die for no good reason other than "he didn't risk his life for the food." I could see withholding the food if you weren't sure there'd be enough but if you have plenty, there's no excuse for letting the guy die.

 

[AntiChri5]

Why must someone be murdered? Why not eat each others legs? Everyone has an extremity they don't need. Everyone pitches in, everyone eats. You eat my leg, i will eat yours. Because eating your own would be gross.

 

[Silverfox99]

For me the moral thing to do is let the man starve. While, you may save his life, at the same time you are devaluing the life of the others and the sacrifice of the person that became the food. He gets the reward without the risk? That isn't doing right by the people who did choose to enter the draw. Many of those people should be angry at the risk they took to stay alive, when they didn't have to take that risk to survive. They could have opted out and then put on the puppy dog eyes. Also, the person made their choice knowing what the results would be. Is it moral to ignore the choice of another?

The merciful thing to do is to give the person who opted out food. Mercy and morality are not always the same thing. Often we see and think to two to go hand in hand. This is almost always true in cases where someone could die. Keeping someone alive is more of a mercy than a moral action. Often when death is on the line, morals and mercy tend to conflict.

 

[wulf3n]

Can anybody who is saying that it was "selfish" explain why it was selfish, when the whole point of pulling straws was to increase the chance of surviving. The way I see it, people almost certainly joined in on a gamble that they'll survive, not that they'll die. Abiding by the rules and dying graciously, thats one thing, but I seriously don't see a selfless act in joining in on a straw drawing in which you're gambling your life on that somebody other than you is going to die. Selfless would be if they said "fuck this drawing straws, just shoot me and eat me instead of that crap", but thats not what they did. I just don't understand the use of the word "selfish" in this context, I'm genuinely puzzled.

Just because it's not a selfless act to join in doesn't mean it wasn't a selfish act to opt out. Nor is it inherently selfish. It's really only selfish of the person if they request access to the left overs after all is said and done. Now if the person who opted out hasn't said anything about it, and the others offered of their own volition the act can't really be considered selfish.

 

[FalloutJack]

Weird set up. What happened to fishing? Or sea birds? Or how about, first person to die of starvation gets eaten? As for the man, how about you ask him if he wants to be fed? And what are you going to feed him? I thought you only had the meat of the fat man? So maybe he still doesn't want to eat it on principal.

Here, let me break this down for ya.

{1} Probably a case where even makeshift equipment to start fishing is not available or you're in an area where that kind of prospect wouldn't be likely to work or, worse, kill you. True, if you've read Catch-22, you know you can catch cod and eat it raw, and you know about sushi, but are you any good at dealing with any of that? Do you have the skills to catch and safely prepare enough fish with perhaps makeshift or even NO useful equipment? If your answer is yes, then you're a better man than I.

{2} I wouldn't eat seagull if you paid me, but putting that aside, they don't often stick around people unless those people are already dying. It brings up the question of catching or killing, plucking, and - if you've any sense left - cooking it. Dunno if that's possible on a lifeboard, but if it is, then it must be a good one. Still, this must again assume the equipment's not there.

{3} D'you know how long it takes for someone to starve to death? A month! Dying of thirst is five days or a week on the outside, and I'm guessing that waiting around for either is gonna be hard. More than likely, the big man in the scenario who got chosen to be eaten ends up outlasting everyone else, kills them, eats them, and then tells them at the coast whatever he likes.

{4} Yeah, you have only the fat man's meat and that's what you'd be supposing to feed him, but I wouldn't. He didn't want it anyway, and a guy like him will ruin things for everyone else. In short, I agree with your statement.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Easy for me. I have a set of morals I adopted when I signed by healthcare professional oath and took it in front my peers.

"Do no harm". - The cannibalism was neccessary to save more lives so this could be justified.

And to paraphrase

"You treat everyone. Everyone. You are not an arbiter of morality you are a person who saves people. You might save a murderer, you might save a wife beater, you might save a violent racist. You do it anyway. It is moral and correct."

I force myself to totally ignore the role of judge in life endangering scenarios. Maybe the oath only applies on the job but I take it very seriously and would uphold it always. You help everyone you can end of story. Unless doing so will actively lead to more harm.

The way I see it if the man opts out he simply agrees to be lowest priority for food. Food for ALL others first then him. If there wasnt enough to go around it would be too bad for him. But since there is his lower priority doesnt matter too much. He can eat less if the crew deem that justice. I personally would feed him from my own share if thats how people wanted it to be. Hes a coward but its understandable. I think personal vendettas are stupid. Killing a real person over an imaginary ideal is ridiculously poor prioritisation. This isnt feudal japan, this honor killing (Yes, killing a man by starvation to preserve the "honor" of those who opted in or the one that died is an honor killing) is just as disgusting as all other honor killings in my eyes.

Letting him die of starvation is stupidly cruel as well as being a waste of cannibal meat, since his starvation will make him useless. The most moral thing to do IF you wanted to kill him would be to bash his head in with a rock. And if the MOST moral way to go about something involves head bashing and rocks youre probably doing something wrong.