Ends justifying the means

[delericho]

What would you do in the lifeboat situation (post #20)?

While Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," it's also quite telling that when the time came, and the sacrifice had to be made, his chose to sacrifice himself.

 

[tomBitonti]

Wouldn't the lifeboat example match the problem of vaccine distribution?

There are ongoing problems of too little vaccine being available.

I understand that distribution is prioritized: First to caregivers; Second to persons most vulnerable. I'm not sure who comes next.

There is an example of the crew of the Endurance (1912), which was forced to split, with a part of the crew going ahead in a lifeboat, while the rest were forced to wait for the others to reach help. That is a clear decision of prioritizing personnel. (All were eventually saved, and the tale is very dramatic and a good read.)

Those don't seem like "the ends justifies the means". But, if not, what feature is missing?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," it's also quite telling that when the time came, and the sacrifice had to be made, his chose to sacrifice himself.

In that case, it really wasn't an option. First of all, its unrealistic to expect 10 or so people out of 20+ to "do the right thing".

Second, as a sailor in the lifeboat, it would be your duty to save the others. The lifeboat in question contained 3 ships crew: the mortally wounded ship's captain, someone from engineering, and the first mate. The captain died, and was tossed, leaving the first mate as the only person who knew their position and how to navigate. Nobody else aboard had any boating expertise of note.

So, not only could he not abdicate his responsibility to save lives, he further could not self-sacrifice, since either decision would have caused more fatalities than deciding to abandon some of the wreck's initial survivors.

 

[delericho]

In that case, it really wasn't an option. First of all, its unrealistic to expect 10 or so people out of 20+ to "do the right thing".

Second, as a sailor in the lifeboat, it would be your duty to save the others. The lifeboat in question contained 3 ships crew: the dying ship's captain, someone from engineering, and the first mate. The captain died, and was tossed, leaving the first mate as the only person who knew their position and how to navigate. Nobody else aboard had any boating expertise of note.

So, not only could he not abdicate his responsibility to save lives, he further could not self-sacrifice, since either decision would have caused more fatalities than deciding to abandon some of the wreck's initial survivors.

My honest response to that is that first you assign spaces to anyone who has essential skills (e.g. the navigator), and then the rest draw lots, or similar.

However, I also draw the distinction between something being the necessary thing to do and it being the right thing to do - and this falls into the latter category. "The best of a bad set of choices" isn't the same as "a good choice".

Edit: oh, the other thing... when envisaging my response to the scenario the first time out, I wasn't casting myself as the first officer (or captain). So I didn't assume responsibility for deciding for others what would be done. Having said that, though, I reject the notion that in that scenario it would be for the captain or first officer to make the choices - once we've reached that point, things necessarily get a lot more... anarchic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wasnt assuming you put yourself in the position of command. That's why i pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect half of a group of strangers to "do the right thing".

You're kinda contradicting yourself- on the one hand, you said that you would assign spots for those with essential skills- here, only the First Mate- then put everyone else in a survival lottery. But you "reject the notion that in that scenario it would be for the captain or first officer to make the choices".

Well who decides who has "essential skills"? Once someone has decided some people don't have to participate in the lottery, they're already making life & death decisions about other people. They might as well continue to do the job to its logical conclusion.

And as for the authority in general...well, that's part of the job description of being a ship's crewman in a lifeboat. And even of it were not, don't you think that the group as a whole would look to such a person for decision making because of their experience and skill set?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Apologies, all- due to my faulty memory, I've been presenting the fictionalized version of the William Brown wreck as fact.

The actual facts are no better. If anything, they're worse:

The captain, second mate, 7 sailors and one lucky passenger appropriated for themselves the better of the only two lifeboats. This was known as a jolly boat, having a sail and a fairly deep draft. The other craft, a long boat, which could be propelled only by oars, was left for the remainder of the crew and as many of the passengers as could fit into her; this number came to some 9 of the former and 33 of the latter.

About half of the passengers on the ship were left behind, and they stood on the deck, "shrieking and calling on the captain to take them off his boat." At least 14, some say 16, persons saved to the ship's longboat were thrown overboard 24 hours later by sailors acting upon their superior's orders because of the storm. The First Mate was convicted of manslaughter a year later.

 

[tomBitonti]

Interesting history lesson.

But, it doesn't seem like an "does the ends justify the means" type situation.

The basic question was whether the removal of some persons from the lifeboat necessary. A secondary question is which persons to remove.

Some persons on the lifeboat might choose to reduce their risk by tossing others. That's simple ruthlessness. The same, if one person with a gun got to decide to keep his friends, and to push the few folks he disliked overboard.

This is a simple (if agonizing) prioritization / value judgement problem.

I'd say a similar case is for a woman who has one of the breast cancer genes. Some chose mastectomies, some don't. (My apologies for the brusque discussion on a sensitive and serious subject.)

The net of all of this, to me, is to find "does the ends justify the means" to be somewhat trite. When cast to specific circumstances, the details seem to override any general moralization.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

That is then saying it is right for the next guy to do it, that the cure can come at the price of a person's freedom's and rights and that some people are less valuable because of their race, religion or sexual preference.

No, it doesn't mean it is legitimate to do it again. It is just not pretending it didn't happen.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Interesting history lesson.

But, it doesn't seem like an "does the ends justify the means" type situation.

The basic question was whether the removal of some persons from the lifeboat necessary. A secondary question is which persons to remove.

Some persons on the lifeboat might choose to reduce their risk by tossing others. That's simple ruthlessness. The same, if one person with a gun got to decide to keep his friends, and to push the few folks he disliked overboard.

This is a simple (if agonizing) prioritization / value judgement problem.

The ultimate & overwhelming issue in the fictionalized and actual case was that the boat in question was overloaded to the point that it could not deliver to safety all of its passengers. In neither case did the lifeboat have enough water and food stood aboard to stave off death from exposure & thirst, and a storm threatened the seaworthiness of each vessel in question.

In the fictionalized account, the First Mate acted before the storm hit. In the the actual case, at the time people were being ejected, the overloaded lifeboat was taking on water and near sinking or overturning. In both, the only things aboard that could be jettisoned were food, water, and people. Had the vessel capsized, all food and fresh water would have been lost.

So the answer to the first question is yes- removal of some was the only way to prevent the loss of all.

As to the second, well...I find it enlightening that the RW First Mate was convicted of manslaughter (again, not murder) not because he killed or ordered to be killed persons under his aegis, but rather, he was faulted for improper method of selectiing them and failure to act decisively before the situation reached crisis. That is, he should have been tossing people before the boat was so close to sinking- had he acted decisively beforehand (as the movie character did), he would not have been under as much time pressure, and could have chosen whom to sacrifice with more wisdom.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I am not saying she met the legal definition of self defense. Clearly by the law, she didn't. But I think given that her husband was abusive. Given his increasing interest in child pornography and young women. Given the wife's belief that he was going to harm their daughter. And given the fact that he was amassing bomb making material.....I'd say this rises well above 'might' and into the territory of 'probably will'. I agree with you, those other options would have been much better choices. However she didn't have the luxury of making that decision from our vantage point of relative safety. She was in the same household as this man, abused by him, and presumably in great fear. I think from her point of view, going to the police was just as risky because if they didn't arrest him right away, if he was released from jail, or if he somehow convinced them she was crazy, then there would be nothing she could do to protect the daughter. So while I would prefer she went about it another way, I cannot support sending her to jail for this. She acted as a lot of other mothers would in that situation.

I have one issue with this: At the time of the murder her husband was asleep. She wasn't locked in the home and she had access to her child. All she had to do was leave. She didn't. She chose to murder a man in his sleep instead.