. In l 842, a ship struck an iceberg, and more than 30 survivors W!sle crew!were

Question

. In l 842, a ship struck an iceberg, and more than 30 survivors W!sle crew!were crowded into a lifeboat planned to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became clear that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown (die). Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboardj ii, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing he captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be irrational, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was judged for his action. Did the captain make the right decision? Why or why not? Which ethical theory or theories could be applied here? Ethics

Explanation / Answer

Answers will differ. He could have pivoted travellers all through the vessel. He could have asked for volunteers instead of choosing the weaker travellers. He could have delayed his choice for whatever length of time that conceivable to augment the open door for safeguard. Depending on the size of the chunk of ice, they could have looked for asylum there, however lighting a fire would have been foolish. this was an extreme decision and the commander expected to investigate the outcomes of his actions. He didn't consider that the raft may have been saved before anybody kicked the bucket. The lives of blameless individuals can't be relinquished, and the chief does not have the expert to choose who will or won't bite the dust.

The morals for more note worthy’s benefit hypothesis and the general morals hypothesis can be connected to this situation. More prominent benefit hypothesis centers around the best useful for the best number of individuals. The commander was endeavouring to spare however many individuals as could be expected under the circumstances, yet with a specific end goal to do that, he was ready to forfeit others. As indicated by the all-inclusive morals hypothesis, nobody is responsible for the outcomes of the moves made. Every one of the 3 speculations could be connected here: Virtuous Ethics – The Captain followed up on the premise this was his choice to settle on and that the choice would be an impression of his individual character and integrity. Ethics for the Greater Good – the awful choice to forfeit the weaker travellers to expand the odds of survival for the staying ones is an exemplary model of utilitarianism – i.e. the mankind of the finishes would legitimize the brutality of the means. Universal Ethics – The Captain was carrying on of obligation and commitment in the conviction that there was one 'right' or if nothing else 'fitting' choice to be made.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse #
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.