Ends and Means
I was asking myself this question in my class's ethics lesson. Do the ends justify the 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.
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.
posted by W | Tuesday, January 29, 2008
5 Comments:
reminds me of a activity i once did in counselling class in discovering our values. if there are 10 people on board a sinking ship, and u can only save 5, which 5 wld u save? and they gave all the demographics of each person, age, status, jobs, etc....
hmm ok. So which five will you save???
i saved the 5 youngest, regardless of whether they are disabled, whether the mother is a single parent with 5 kids, whether the man is a successful lawyer, whether its the retiree who's lived a great life, etc...
i felt i couldn't play God and choose who should live, because everyone has a reason to live, so i just chose the 5 youngest.
but choosing the five means you had played God and chose five to live and five to die.
I look at it as i have chosen five to die. It sucks, but it is the truth. Whichever 5 you choose, the other 5 pay with their lives. Personally, i'd chose the younger ones because it is less painful to let the older ones die.
but its either u choose 5, or u dun choose 5 and let all 10 try to fight for the space and everyone dies.
Post a Comment
<< Home