Read the "Lifeboat case", watch the videos and answer the following in 2-3 paragraphs:
1. Suppose you find yourself in a situation in which killing an innocent person is the only
way to prevent many innocent people from dying, what is the right thing to do? Defend
your answer.
For me, this example is what is generally known as the trolley problem in
philosophy, because it is a typical ethical dilemma, and it makes us ponder whether an
individual's life can be sacrificed for society's common good. Because in this situation
one innocent life is chosen to save the lives of many others. I think maybe the utilitarian
worldview could be considered as a good solution, since it is based on the idea that the
action which results in the greatest overall happiness and the least overall suffering is the
morally just one. Another perspective could be deontological ethics, which emphasizes
the importance of following moral rules or duties. From this perspective, killing an
innocent person, even in response to some obstacles, would be regarded as unethical as it
contradicts the principle of respecting human lives and personalities.
2. How should we judge the action of Dudley and Stephens? Why?
Dudley and Stephens being at sea had to ritual cannibalism in order to live. They
killed and ate the cabin boy, Richard Parker who's life was in their hands. Although they
were motivated by undying hunger, tragically they killed an unoffending person. They
were approached with a horrible choice and it is crucial to acknowledge the emotions
related to that kind of dilemma. The choice they made signifies the difficult
circumstances they had to face which were so hard to comprehend that one is not able
anymore to perceive if it is a mere survival instinct or a moral responsibility. However, it
might be understood that they did wrong, but their decisions were nevertheless ethically
questionable, pointing to the intricate nature of such psychology under severe strain.
[Link] it morally justified or morally wrong? Do you agree on the decision of the court?
Expound.
Determining the morally just or morally wrong nature of Dudley and Stephens'
actions is the point at which there is sharp disagreement, and people's ethical position
comes into play. In line with a utilitarian approach the actions of our characters are
possibly considered as right from their perspective because they only managed to survive
perchance by themselves and maybe other people arrived. Nevertheless, from a
deontological stance, it doesn't make sense to say that there is a right situation for killing
an innocent person as it is inherently wrong. Concerning the outcome having been the
court which confirmed the death penalty and did it with leniency based on the
circumstances under which they acted, it is clearly the embodiment of societal norms and
legal principles. On the one hand, the court recognized that the case was an exception of
the last resort when human life is in danger, but on the other hand, it also upheld the
principle that people must not control the law themselves hence should not act in that
way even when their lives are in [Link] the end, as well, whose point of view has been
taken in accordance with justice remains an open subject; that balance between
understanding and the principle of justice is still debatable. There are those who would
say that the dock's response was just drill on the moral basis of their case even though
they were in unfortunate situation while others might claim that the sentence was harsh
which had no regard to the fate of the aviator and Dudley and Stephens. It is a
complicated path to trace between society’s expectations and legal constraints that has no
definitive answer.
3. Discuss reason and impartiality and its importance in decision-making.
Making decisions based on reason includes employing the rationality, application
of critical thinking, and collection of evidence. This presupposes to think critically, to
reflect, analyze your choices, and to predict consequences in order to come to a decision
that is both logical and just. Reason is useful for notions such as moving away from the
decisions which are driven only by emotions or biases and with that clarity in the process
of thinking. Decisions will not be based on the subjectivity of the judge but will be
based on valid assessment and logic, while impartiality it is the concept means that the
issues are dealt with in a fair manner regardless of whether the decision undermines
personal envy or, to the contrary, benefits someone. Impartiality in decisive making
includes putting aside one's personal tendencies, feelings, and relationships with people
to ensure that no one is treated unfairly. This strategy implies that every case should be
examined equally, while the irrelevant features such as race, gender, or social class should
not bear too much weight in the decision-making process. Neutrality encourages equity,
and justice in a decision-making process as it provides only the significant criteria as
basis for determining decisions made.
REFERENCES:
On the Intrinsic Wrongness of Killing Innocent People on JSTOR. (n.d.). [Link].
[Link]
Summarizer, G. V. (2024, January 4). Moral Dilemmas and Utilitarianism: The Queen vs. Dudley
and Stephens Case. Video Summarizer. [Link]
whats-the-right-thing-to-17218659_241459
T, G. (2024, January 23). The lifeboat case.
[Link]
Minchin, G. E. (2020). <i>Regina v Dudley & Stephens</i> Anatomy of a Show
Trial. Beijing Law Review, 11(03), 782–804. [Link]
Impartiality: The role of impartiality in armslength decision making - FasterCapital. (n.d.).
FasterCapital. [Link]
[Link]
