The Lifeboat case describes an incident where four sailors were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic. They had run out of food, were starving, and decided to kill one sailor for the survival of the rest. The remaining three sailors were rescued and tried in the court of British law and argued that they did not commit murder out of premeditation. They stated that it was a necessary action for the survival of the group. This case provides an interesting ethical dilemma that must be examined in detail.
Ethical Decision
The Question of Morality
Anyone would understand the sailors feelings of desperation and natural instinct to survive. The dilemma presented in this case is the issue of the possible survival of the majority. Effectively, the captain decided that killing was permitted under certain circumstances. The main question is whether the sailors were justified in their efforts to sustain themselves by murdering a fellow sailor in such dire circumstances.
Considering the Sailors
The young cabin boy who died, Richard Parker, was sick from seawater. His health was already compromised, which made him an easy target and made the other sailors comfortable with the idea of murder. In their mind, his survival was already less likely compared to the healthy rest of the group. Captain Tom Dudley, who decided to kill Parker, proposed the idea of drawing lots to determine who would die. However, it was denied by the other sailors, and no lots were drawn. The sailors in the lifeboat were all on the brink of starvation. To them, the murder of the cabin boy was a matter of survival.
The cabin boy, however, was completely helpless in this situation. Not only was he ill, but he was also the youngest and the least experienced in the group. He was the least important in terms of status among his crewmates. His life was taken without any draw or consent, which makes this case an ethical dilemma. Also, the captain’s decision to sacrifice his cabin boy could be considered selfish because it is doubtful that he would be willing to sacrifice himself for his crew. Moreover, the group’s survival was still not guaranteed after the murder because the rescue may not have been coming. The efforts of the captain could have been in vain if the government had not found them or were too late.
Alternatives
Instead of killing the cabin boy, the sailors could have considered other alternatives. The most obvious one would be to abstain from murder and try to survive through other means, such as focusing on gathering food from the sea – fish, birds, and seaweed. This alternative makes it less likely that all the sailors survived, but it is a more moral option that does not involve the murder or cannibalism of a sick and weak crew member. This alternative relies on the notion that the cabin boy’s life is sacred and not something worth sacrificing, even for the lives of others.
Another alternative that they could have followed is the lot draw. This way, it would have been more likely that the rest of the crew survived while still sacrificing one member. If the sailors willingly decided to participate in the draw, the murder would have been fairer. Fairness in this alternative is the idea that all the sailors would have an equal chance of survival, which would be 75%. The murder of Parker would not have been such a morally reprehensible action too. However, the likelihood that the cabin boy would have survived is still less than the rest because of his illness. If a sailor other than Parker was killed and the young boy still died due to sickness, his death would have less meaning.
Lastly, Parker could have voluntarily given up his life for the rest of the group. This alternative would be more peaceful, making it more of an assisted suicide rather than homicide. The cabin boy’s self-sacrifice would be considered heroic and make the sailor’s actions less immoral. However, the consent option could still fall under scrutiny because there would be no way to verify these claims later in the courtroom.
Decision
Based on my moral principles, I believe the decision to take the cabin boy’s life was wrong. Like any other sailor, Parker had the right to live, no matter how weak his health was. The survival of the group should never come at the expense of one of its members. The sailors had no right to take the life of another based on their perception of his value to the group. If I were on the jury making the decision of whether or not the surviving sailors were guilty, I would vote yes. The approach I used to make this decision is The Rights Approach.
Reflection
Ethics and Life
The course Ethics and Life covered many different moral topics and dilemmas that interested me. Philosophy is a very abstract and introspective science, which is hard to grasp, but I felt I gained a good understanding of it after the course. Environmental, development, deontological, and teleological ethics allowed me to assess my own moral standards that allowed to analyze the Lifeboat dilemma. Western ethical traditions were very interesting because they explained the origins of the morals upon which our society was built.
Application
My learnings will be very useful in future career paths I might take. For example, suppose my job will be in an office setting. In that case, the lessons I took will be useful in settling disputes between colleagues and making major management decisions involving people. Moral issues at work are far more common than most believe. Deciding what would be best for the majority of the community or one single individual requires knowledge of one’s moral standards and ethics.