As expected from anarcho-capitalists no one answered the fucking question save for Stephen and nir, who a lá Block reduced ethics to absurdum.
Given the scenario is consistent and valid as presented then the answer is obviously ambiguous. The question essentially boils down to who is more deserving of life. If I were the officer I’d explain the situation and ask whether someone would willing sacrifice themselves which would be the preferred option. Given this cannot be done a decision should be made on the moral character of the passengers. Now being a Christian, believing salvation is unmerited and only through Christ’s death and resurrection; when confronted with a legal problem in which you are not the sinned against party you cannot forgive on the behalf of another and so the more serious the offence, the more serious the punishment. This is not a legal setting but I think the same logic should apply- which one has lived the worst life? Now from a Biblical perspective given only the information above the choice would be between the unwed pregnant teenager and the drug dealer who from description seems the violent type. Now since the teenager is carrying an innocent, the unborn child, the conclusion must be to sacrifice the drug dealer. One could argue that is the librarian work all her life in a Satanic library and the poet promoted atheism in his poetry then they could be candidates but we are simply not given the information; if I knew more about the Pullitzer prize it might help.
Libertarianism alone cannot answer this question which is where a fuller general theory of morality is needed.
Now obviously in the really world this scenario is practically impossible and hence of no practical use; all they seem to be created for is to attack absolutist moral/ ethical theories so utilitarianism seems ethical.
Scineram, how’s that for an answer from an an-cap?
Edit: I only just noticed that they are all on the boat and one has to be kicked off rather than choosing who should be allowed on. Now if this is the case then the officer and anyone else should go down with he ship since it is always wrong to kill innocent, in the strict earthly legal sense, life. May above answer would only asnwer teh case where you got to choose who was on the boat not who to kick off.
Seems fine. Its not like anarcho-capitalism needs to have an ethical backing.
And if they want to be taken seriously they need to start answering the question. In a no nonsense way. What would they do as the crew member?
I’d sacrifice the drug dealer; see above.
To be taken seriously they need to answer life-boat (moral) questions? I really don’t see the necessity or relevance. Most people don’t know what they would do in such a situation, answering specifically (from anyone) is just bullshitting until its put to the test.
I’d pick the most annoying one, probably the poet or the libertarian. /bullshit
Wouldn’t the Christian solution be to jettison the nun? If the officer asks her and she agrees, then that’s the ‘greatest love,’ which she should want to show. On the other hand, if she is unwilling, she’s still obliged to pray for his immortal soul. And even if he isn’t saved, his chances are certainly better now. Its a win win.
It is clear the people are making due with what they have. There are 7 people in a 6 person lifeboat. “Provisions for 6 people” doesn’t mean “If 7 people use those provisions, you’ll be attacked by a giant squid”. Lifeboat scenarios are worthless and tell NOTHING of one’s morality. It only leaves more questions than answers. Would a star quarterback or drug dealer really need all his provisions? How do I know the librarian isn’t lying? Would a nun really want to go on the same boat as a pregnant teenager, which to her probably caused god to sink the ship? Where at sea are they? Why does the officer need to sacrifice one of them? Are any of the people a personal value to the officer?
Also, having the right to do something does not necessarily mean it is a MORAL choice. So the question cannot be answered without an arbitrary coin toss.
They are too heavy and the boat is sinking. That is why.
I answered that although you seem to be thinking that I was the one sacrificed and am now posting beyond the grave; thus writing me off as a delusion.
I saw that. You are fine. I was talking to the evaders.
Wow, being an incorporeal person is good. Yay.
On a more serious note I hate people who don’t answer questions head on.
So you have never heard of Jack Kevorkian?
I am sorry, dudefella. But it’s not that easy. This whole “you can’t kill someone without their consent” is nonsense.
I could decide that I don’t like your opinion, shoot you in the head, then walk away. There are no such things as rights. They’re imaginary, we made them up. Rights are just an idea we came up with to try to live more peaceably with each other. Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to provide a case for a “right to life”.
It is simple. As a libertarian, the Captain owns the boat, therefor, he decided who gets kicked off. If it were me, I’d ask for a volunteer, but if no one volunteered, I’d drop kick the poet, because poet’s piss me off. Would it be a hard thing for me to do? Most likely. The taking of a life is an egregious matter, to me.
In all reality, though, that nun would probably volunteer. They are crazy like that. Just my opinion, though.
Only if said AnCaps subscribe to the monolithic legal vision of Rothbard. If under AnCap the legal code is determined by private courts and PDAs, then this question is outside the scope of the theory.
That’s because ethics are absurd. We don’t have to prove ourselves to you, you have to prove your case to us. The original question was absurd to begin with. If you’re a libertarian, it’s an obvious answer, even if it is a sucky one.
he decides that no one gets kicked off, since he has contracted with his guests that he will not kick them off unless certain criteria are met. i.e. that they become violent, or that they are at port and can safely leave and he wishes them to leave, etc etc.
to kick them off and kill them is to commit a crime.
This is partly why I thought the original question was absurd, it doesn’t take into account many factors. So I answered with the same absurdity.
And then my family would take you to court for murder. Again, a "right’ is just a “legal claim”.
Did the captain own the person he killed?
Have you heard of Doctor Kevorkian and assisted suicide?
What does that have to do with whether or not it is OK to kill someone? Regardless, assume he is considered the owner of the life raft.
Because if one cannot own another human being, then how does one derive the right to kill another person based on owning the property the other person is standing on?
A pacifist would probably say no. I have not yet decided. I am leaning towards no.
The OP was clear that all 7 people were in a sinking boat, and that if one of them got out, it would not sink, but the one that got out would die (from freezing water I assume).