Poll: A Tricky Moral Dilemma

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
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

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
floppylobster said:
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

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
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.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
wulf3n said:
So essentially what you're saying is it's okay to lie to someone to convince them to kill himself in order to save someone else, because hey, they're dead, they don't feel anymore.
Point of order: Nothing about the example as provided in the original post says the person who draws the short stick is committing suicide rather than being violently killed by the other participants.

But yes, I think it is one hundred percent moral to, when in a situation where you only get to live if someone else dies, to take whatever actions are necessary to be the one who lives. That is the entire basis of self-defense. No one owes it to anyone else to cease existing for them, and the idea that everyone is honor-bound to obey a set of rules specifically crafted in order to kill another human being while dodging responsibility for the act ("I had to kill him, the captain and the straw told me to!") is crap.

wulf3n said:
Ignoring the fact that that action itself is arguably murder.
Murder is a legal term that describe an unlawful killing. Killing in self-defense cannot be murder.

wulf3n said:
The current dilemma only exists because the guy who opted out essentially did what the others are doing to him now.
The current dilemma is not improved by having two corpses on the floor rather than one. Nothing is improved by more death when the second death could be prevented at no harm to anyone. No one is better off is the second person dies.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
JimB said:
Point of order: Nothing about the example as provided in the original post says the person who draws the short stick is committing suicide rather than being violently killed by the other participants.
A point I would argue is moot, as fact the person who drew the short straw did so by entering into the agreement knowing the conditions of entry. If i'm reading your statement correctly.

JimB said:
But yes, I think it is one hundred percent moral to, when in a situation where you only get to live if someone else dies, to take whatever actions are necessary to be the one who lives. That is the entire basis of self-defense. No one owes it to anyone else to cease existing for them, and the idea that everyone is honor-bound to obey a set of rules specifically crafted in order to kill another human being while dodging responsibility for the act ("I had to kill him, the captain and the straw told me to!") is crap.
While I agree that no one is honour bound to let themselves die based on arbitrary criteria, I don't think the morality of the action is so black and white.

JimB said:
Murder is a legal term that describe an unlawful killing. Killing in self-defense cannot be murder.
Another fuzzy scenario. I would liken it to pushing someone in front of a lion to ensure you do not get eaten. Necessary to survive perhaps, but I don't know it it qualifies as self-defense as the person being killed is not necessarily the one who is threatening your existance.

JimB said:
The current dilemma is not improved by having two corpses on the floor rather than one. Nothing is improved by more death when the second death could be prevented at no harm to anyone. No one is better off is the second person dies.
I don't disagree that it's wasteful, just that I don't feel it's "moral"

MarsAtlas said:
wulf3n said:
It's really only selfish of the person if they request access to the left overs after all is said and done.
I see your point, but think thats kind of extremely hypocritical then to deny them eat some of George (I'm gonna start calling the cannibalized man that) by saying its selfish to request to, when they themselves murdered the guy to continue their own life. I mean, whats really to prevent somebody from opting out if their straw gets picked - their word? The scenario specified does not detail whether or not George gave his life selflessly or died trying to defend himself from the would-be cannibals, or if anybody else volunteered or not. Even after straws were pulled, George did not have to be killed, the pact could be ignored or refused by people who joined in. But they didn't do that, he died, and they allowed him to die, so they could survive - that pretty much perfectly details selfishness. I mean, I understand the point that its selfish, but it would kind of be extremely hypocritical to refuse the man who opted out part of George's left foot.

[Homer Simpson Voice]Mmmmmmm... toejam....[/Homer Simpson Voice]
While George was murdered, possibly unwillingly, he did agree to that eventuality. All who originally ate did. That was the gamble. The others took the risk of being eaten with the reward of getting to eat. The other in question did not. Their gamble was that they would make it to shore before starvation. By asking the others for a part of George they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't know if I'd agree the group actions would be considered hypocritical... immoral maybe.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
AntiChri5 said:
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.
Because that's not how reality works and it would kill you.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
wulf3n said:
A point I would argue is moot, as fact the person who drew the short straw did so by entering into the agreement knowing the conditions of entry. If I'm reading your statement correctly.
Somewhat, though I could have been clearer. My point is more to the effect that I think you're arguing the person who was eaten chose to die, which I don't think is borne out by the provided example. We don't know the circumstances that led to his death, or if he tried to renege when he found out he was the one to die but was forced against his will to be killed and eaten regardless.

wulf3n said:
While I agree that no one is honor-bound to let themselves die based on arbitrary criteria, I don't think the morality of the action is so black and white.
I do. The right to live is the single greatest right anyone possesses, the right upon which all others are built. If you are in a situation you did not cause where someone has to die, then you have every right in the world to protect yourself. That right is absolute and inviolate.

wulf3n said:
I would liken it to pushing someone in front of a lion to ensure you do not get eaten. Necessary to survive perhaps, but I don't know if it qualifies as self-defense as the person being killed is not necessarily the one who is threatening your existence.
Let me suggest a closer analogy: You're being held hostage in a bank by a terrorist who says he intends to murder exactly one person, but he refuses to murder a Jew (clearly this person is insane, because his goals and rules make no sense). Are you wrong to try to convince the man with the gun that you're Jewish?
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Where's the 'you're on a boat, catch some bloody fish' option?

Ok, ok. I get the point of the intellectual exercise. Whilst the obvious choice is to let the non-voter eat, you must also take into account why they did not vote. Chances are if someone voted not to eat people and would rather starve, they did it on moral or religious reasons. Best case scenario? Allow them to eat, but do not force them to. Then their choice is their own.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
Grouchy Imp said:
Where's the 'you're on a boat, catch some bloody fish' option?
Were it that easy I assure you that this scenario would not be based on a true story.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Dear God I hope OP is never the captain of my starving life raft. This optional draw is a terrible idea! If you can't catch any fish can't you all agree to sacrifice a finger each or something? Does it need to escalate to murder so quickly?

Anyway, despite how unrealistic the scenario is you'd have to let the man eat. No sense in sentencing a man to death just because he couldn't bring himself to put his life on the line for others.
 

Moderated

New member
May 12, 2012
387
0
0
Hmm, everyone else is willing to die for a chance at food. Oh well, they'll give me some anyway.
Fuck that.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
JimB said:
Arakasi said:
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?
Withholding food from a starving man because you need it is morally justified. Withholding food you don't need out of some bizarre, blind adherence to a contract written in a scenario that no longer applies is not. One man has already died for this; the death of another does not improve anyone's situation.
This is exactly what I wanted to say. It might be ethically wrong to break the contract, but so is murder. Leaving a person to die when there's no point in doing so is worse than killing a person regardless. If you murder someone then steal his wallet the case against you won't be focused on the fact that you took a wallet, but if you kill a man then kill another man because he witnessed the first murder by accident you will be charged for two murders.

However I wouldn't have made the choice to have a draw in the first place. Nor can I be a ship captain because my eyesight makes me unable to take such a position. Nor do I think it's safe to eat raw meat from a random person who may or may not carry a disease that could infect my entire crew. Finally unless we were starving before the ship sank we would die of thirst regardless of how much food we've got. So my reply is that I wouldn't endanger my crew with possible infectious diseases.
 

Ekit

New member
Oct 19, 2009
1,183
0
0
I would let him feed under the condition that he agree to be cannibalized should something unexpected come up and we need more food.
 

Right Hook

New member
May 29, 2011
947
0
0
If I was completely sure we'd make it back with no more decisions like this, I'd feed him. However if there was any doubt in my mind, I'd let him starve. If you know you'll make it home soon, you are basically no longer in a crisis situation and shouldn't treat this man as you would have mere hours/days before.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
FalloutJack said:
floppylobster said:
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.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. It's somewhat off-topic but just in case you're interested, this is what prompted my questions -

(cut and pasted from Wikipedia)

Poon Lim was born in Hainan, China. In 1942, during World War II, he was working as second steward on the British merchant ship SS Ben Lomond (or Benlomond), which was on its way from Cape Town to Suriname. The ship was armed but slow moving and was sailing alone instead of in a convoy.

On November 23, the German U-boat U-172 intercepted and struck the Ben Lomond with two torpedoes in position 00.30°N 38.45°W, some 750 miles east of the Amazon. As the ship was sinking, Poon Lim took a life jacket and jumped overboard before the ship's boilers exploded. As the ship sank in two minutes, 53 of the crew were lost including the master, 44 sailors and eight gunners, making Lim the sole survivor. Another account suggested that 11 other sailors may have eventually been rescued.

After approximately two hours in the water, he found an 8' square wooden raft and climbed into it. The raft had several tins of biscuits, a forty litre jug of water, some chocolate, a bag of sugar lumps, some flares, two smoke pots and an electric torch.

Poon Lim initially kept himself alive by drinking the water and eating the food on the raft, but later resorted to fishing and catching rainwater in a canvas life jacket covering. He could not swim very well and often tied a rope from the boat to his wrist, in case he fell into the ocean. He took a wire from the electric torch and made it into a fishhook, and used hemp rope as a fishing line. He also dug a nail out of the boards on the wooden raft and bent it into a hook for larger fish. When he captured a fish, he would cut it open with a knife he fashioned out of a biscuit tin and dry it on a hemp line over the raft. Once, a large storm hit and spoiled his fish and fouled his water. Poon, barely alive, caught a bird and drank its blood to survive.

When he saw sharks, he did not swim. Instead he set out to catch one. He used the remnants of the next bird he caught as bait. The first shark to pick up the taste was only a few feet long. He gulped the bait and hit the line with full force, but in preparation Poon Lim had braided the line so it would have double thickness. He also had wrapped his hands in canvas to enable him to make the catch. But the shark attacked him after he brought it aboard the raft. He used the water jug half-filled with seawater as a weapon. After his victory, Poon Lim cut open the shark and sucked its blood from its liver. Since it hadn't rained, he was out of water and this quenched his thirst. He sliced the fins and let them dry in the sun, a Hainan delicacy.

On two occasions other vessels passed nearby: first a freighter, then a squad of United States Navy patrol planes. Poon contended that the freighter saw him but did not pick him up because he was Chinese. The Navy planes did see him, and one dropped a marker buoy in the water. Unfortunately for Poon, a large storm hit the area at the same time and he was lost again. He was also once spotted by a German U-boat, which had been doing gunnery drills by targeting seagulls.

At first, he counted the days by tying knots in a rope, but later decided that there was no point in counting the days and simply began counting full moons.

He survived 133 days alone in the South Atlantic.
 
May 29, 2011
1,179
0
0
I'm not going to kill someone, so...

Yeah I know he made a selfish decision, but it's still killing someone.

I like to think about the actual consequences of my actions, and this person doesn't deserve to die because he made a selfish decision. Obviously not. It would take immensely more I'm having difficulty with the poll results.

People are talking about "justice" in here.

Justice in what? In the desperate last minute system of cannibalism you came up with specifically so you could all SURVIVE? To enforce justice within that system, you have to kill someone?

The whole point of this was to keep people alive and you're going to contradict that for some absurd sense of fairness?
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
Let him eat. What the fuck else are you going to do? Get to shore, take the extra meat with you, then put it in your freezer when you get home and eat the rest of it later? Adhering to the rules isn't worth letting someone die unless the fat guy was your best friend or something and you hate this guy's guts.

Also the scenario might be slightly more morally grey if the person wasn't fat. Even then if you're going to survive anyways I'd still say let him eat, but if the only reason you have so much extra food is specifically because the fat guy drew the short straw, then that guy not entering in its own way contributed to that result and would have helped you survive for longer if you needed to. It also could have saved you from having to draw straws a second time, since this guy starving to death would pretty much guarantee he would be the next meal once the fat guy was gone.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
NoeL said:
Dear God I hope OP is never the captain of my starving life raft. This optional draw is a terrible idea! If you can't catch any fish can't you all agree to sacrifice a finger each or something? Does it need to escalate to murder so quickly?

Anyway, despite how unrealistic the scenario is...
Yopaz said:
However I wouldn't have made the choice to have a draw in the first place. Nor can I be a ship captain because my eyesight makes me unable to take such a position. Nor do I think it's safe to eat raw meat from a random person who may or may not carry a disease that could infect my entire crew. Finally unless we were starving before the ship sank we would die of thirst regardless of how much food we've got. So my reply is that I wouldn't endanger my crew with possible infectious diseases.
floppylobster said:
I quoted all three of you together because all of your replies are along the same line, that it is somewhat feasable to survive in the open water without food. Now I know for floppylobster's (fish-food based name, hah) situation it is somewhat different, the man who survived for so long had some semblance of supplies, nail(s), line and such. But I will copy out of the book the real life situation described for all of your benefits: (please excuse poor copying fidelity)

Would You Kill The Fat Man? - by David Edmonds said:
On July 25, 1884, Captain Dudley, a short man with red hair, stabbed, killed, and later began to eat his cabin boy... Twenty days before the murder, he, Richard Parker (the cabin boy), and two other men, Stephens and Edmund Brooks, had been in the middle of the Atlantic en route from, England to Australia. Their mission was to deliver a yacht, The Mignonette, to its new owners.
They were well over a thousand miles from land when a terrible storm erupted and their yacht rapidly began to sink. They clambered into a lifeboat. In the chaos, all they managed to salvage from The Mignonette were two tins of turnips. Three weeks on, and they were close to starvation. At seventeen, Parker was the youngest as well as the weakest. There had been little rainfall, and they had all been drinking their own urine, which Parker had supplemented with seawater. He had now begun to drift in and out of consciousness. The others were in a terrible state too. Scorced in daylight, cold at night, their feet had swollen, their bodies had sores.
This is where some details of the story become hazy, but according to Tom Dudley, he proposed a radical solution: they should draw lots and then one out of them should be sacrificed for food. Brooks objected. He thought it better that they all die together. Dudley said, "So let it be, but it is hard for four to die, when perhaps one might save the rest."
A few hours later, Dudley spoke to Stephens, a conversation that Brooks would claim not to have heard. Dudley asked, "what is to be done?" and he gave his saner. "I believe the boy is dying. You have a wife and five children, and I have a wife and three children human flesh has been eaten before."
That night Dudley and Stephens stabbed Parker in the jugular with a penknife. For four days Dudley and Stephens fed off Parker's carcass (and drank his blood). Brooks, despite his denunciation of the crime, joined in: indeed, he ate heartily, more than Stephens, who was desperately feeble.
Some time afterwards they were saved. Where my dilemma comes in is what if the cabin boy was not weaker and the choice to draw lots was given?