A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship’s officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?
Please, no links to Rothbard’s chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn’t really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.
he should sacrifice all of them by not sacrificing any of them. anyone that wants to jump to save the others is free to do so. too bad if they all go down. nature and people who construct elaborate scenarios are a bitch[;)]
If so, he has the right to remove anyone he wants from his property. I don’t think it’s really up to us to say who he should remove. Who he chooses is up to his value judgment.
He may want the pregnant teen to stay if he thinks they’ll end up on a deserted island and wants to repopulate.
He may want the nun to stay for his own religious motives.
He may want the poet to stay because of his/her artistry.
He may want the librarian to stay because he’s a bibliophile.
Asking us to decide who ought to be sacrificed is kind of a silly exercise.
Convention dictates that the ship’s officer shouldn’t have been anywhere near the lifeboat of course your mileage may vary…
This situation, however, conveniently dictates that he is on the lifeboat, and that he must be on the lifeboat in order to avoid everyone’s death. Further, it seems to stipulate that he is unilaterally in charge of determining who will be sacrificially tossed in to the sea.
The poet and the librarian are pretty much useless in a strict utilitarian assessment. But most people, I presume, would choose jettison the drug dealer despite his physical prowess on account of his unsavory career choice. Whether they could effect this result is another question entirely.
In the real world, I’d say odds are that the elderly nun sacrifices herself.
I want to reiterate though: I believe there is no correct answer to the question, “Who should be sacrificed?”
No, one does not have the right to throw someone off of his or her property if it means the death of the person. Rights to life trump rights to property.
The question assumes the officer has the right to choose one. So did everyone on the boat agree to let the officer choose? I will assume they did. If so, and I were the officer, I would have everyone draw straws. Or I would use eny meny miney mo.
How would you rule on this case if it were brought to you as arbitration, and the officer killed someone without getting consent first? Would you say, “there is no right to life, so, no wrong committed”?
So wouldn’t the officer have the right to life as well, and therefore, be able to sacrifice someone else? If a passenger has the right to life, does that mean he has the right to sacrifice the officer?
Right to life just means that no one has the right to take your life without your consent. Lack of action resulting in death is not the same as killing someone. No one has positive rights. There is no obligation on me to keep you alive. At least, that is what my opinion would be as an arbitrator.
I dont usually like to apply Justice to situations… but if they could make the decision from behind the veil of ignorance I believe the result would be satisfactory.
“Survivor” template: They all are aware of the circumstances (7 people, space for 6) and agree on an anonymous poll (vote) where each member suggests a member to be “voted off”. The one with most votes gets thrown out. If everyone gets a single vote, the poll is repeated with everyone suggesting their second “vote off” choice. Repeat until a single member appears with most votes. Seems the fairest way to handle this.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would he, the owner, jump off (to die) when hes going to die because of other passengers on his boat? And its hardly stupid to let the seventh person die when only six can survive.
of course your mileage may vary…