Ends and Means
The question is:
A Captain of a sinking ship is forced to make a decision. IF he threw some people overboard, he would be able to save the rest as the ship would be able to stay afloat and they could steer the ship to safety. If on the other hand, the Captain did not throw people overboard, then everyone would go down with the ship.
The captain decides to throw some people overboard, and he decides to throw the weaker ones as the boat needed people to row. Now those who were not thrown overboard were rescued, but the captain was charged in court.
If you were the jury, how would you rule? Did the captain do the right thing?
I found myself asking should the captain have murdered the few people. But if he did not murder the few, he would have been responsible for killing the many. But if he did kill the few, does the ends justify the means.
Christians would say always do the right thing and let God take care of the rest. I am agreeing with that statement except in this case, there is probably no right or wrong thing to do. Either action or inaction is arguably neither, or both, right. Worse, your decisions affect others.
I think in life, it is very hard to live by a hard and fast rule. Circumstances dictate the rules in so many cases. On the one hand, it is conceivable that the captain HAD committed murder. But if the captain had not, he would have committed negligence, of not doing what he can to save those he could. In such cases, i believe it is best that the captain be set free from all charges, as he did what he felt was best in the situation. Since it is not clearly a right or a wrong action, i would at best say that the captain was not a killer neither was he neglecting his duties. He is innocent, forced by circumstances to make decisions that were bad and worse.