In the West we live out lives of overconsumption therefore, we place a greater stress on the amount of resources a country has to offer. The number of people a country can support depends upon the demands their existence in that country places upon it. This, in some respect, is in addition to dibbler's first and third points. The capacity of these lifeboats is dependent on those who inhabit it In addition to the excellent points already made by dibbler, I would like to add the following critiques:Ĥ. However it is the ultimate expression of utilitarian principle, and through its debate it is possible to get a clear idea of precisely where you stand, ethically speaking. In summary, an interesting argument, but not one you should get too hung up on. ![]() The argument becomes too complex when ethical decisions must be made as to how much quality of living must be sacrificed to others. The metaphor would need to be extended to include yatchs, cruise ships, tankers, lifeboats, flotsam and much more. There are standards of living between the polar opposites of survival and death The argument loses a lot of its purpose if it allows you to hide behind a facade of ethics by commity, where no individual can subsume complete responsiblity.ģ. To assume no dissent from citizens (read: passengers) is naive. In reality no one individual can control the destination of a country (read: lifeboat). It assumes that one individual can control a lifeboat Only if the 50 people on board demand an exceptionally high standard of living will the 100 in the water perish.Ģ. ![]() The world can support all of its population in securityĮach lifeboat would now hold 200 people, with 50 on board and 100 in the water. Indeed that argument predates this one, probably to the dawn of philosophical inquiry.ĭepsite the immediate simmilarity of the argument to the current world geopolitical situation some cautionary facts must be acknowledged and further considered:ġ. This is not the classical selection argument as to who you would choose to save given limited resources. It is important to be aware that clasically this argument makes no distinction between passengers - they are to be considered faceless individuals, each of equal value. Jump overboard, admit your place to somebody else = injustice, highest nobilityĪdditionally one must consider to what degree it is appropriate to resist any boarding parties - is passivity in failing to save life more palatable than actively resisting the saving of life?.Admit until an arbritary value between 50 and 60 = marginal justice, some security.Admit nobody and maintian the safety margin = no justice, complete security.Admit people until the lifeboat sinks = total justice and total failure.Popular as an essay question to many university students, some possible responses include For the purposes of the argument you must presume you have total control over the lifeboat and existing passengers will not become prejudiced towards you as a result of your actions. The argument follows that if you alone captained and had sole responsibility for a lifeboat, would you admit additional passengers and to what degree. These displaced people will die without direct intervention from the passengers of the lifeboats.For every lifeboat 100 additional people float in the sea. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |