Situation:
You are in a boat that is slowly and determinedly sinking. There are too many people on board, and the shore is quite a long way off. Two people on board are gravely injured, and are losing a lot of blood. It's almost certain that they'll both die before the boat reaches the shore, if at all it does.
What would you do? Throw the injured men into the sea and save the rest of the passengers, or would you not? Would it make a difference if the dying men were owners of the boat and the other passengers murderers and thieves?
***
The dinner table today was a heated discussion on this issue. As we figured, there are two ways one can deal with this. One is the "moral" way, to value life over all else, and value life equally. Meaning, of course, that no man will be dumped into the sea and left for dead.
The other way is what a certain little person called the "pragmatic" solution. In the interests of the saving lives of the majority, throw the dying men out. Twenty men saved and two men dead is better than twenty-two men dead, when there really was no need for them to die.
As I see it, this dichotomy of views stems from the fact that we look at this from different standpoints.
The moral solution stems from an individual moral standpoint, wherein I would value no life lesser than mine, and therefore, arrogate to right to myself that allows for the abandoning of the two dying men.
The pragmatic solution is what another classmate of mine would call the "selfish" way, because all altruism is, ultimately, selfish. In the interests of propagation, preservation of the human race, or simply, the preservation of society as we see it - built, I suppose, on a set of columns that we like to believe is inherently moral (what is moral, anyway?) - or even more simply, the individual desire to live, the pragmatic solution seems justified.
The question here is: does the pragmatic solution automatically place a price on the value of human life (and is that justified/acceptable), or is the value of individual human life economically and socially incalculable?
***
An observation made today:
The Delhi High Court, in a 1983 judgement, seems to favour the pragmatic solution over the "moral". The reason they state is simply this: that if a law kills one and saves a hundred lives, it is in greater social interest and is therefore a just, fair and right law. Inevitable, perhaps?
My question still stands.
4 comments:
Have a look at Ch. 7 of John Finnis' Natural Law and Natural Rights for a negation of consequentialist arguments of the killing-two-to-save twenty variety.
:-)
About the Delhi High Court statement - yes, it was inevitable I guess.
About your hypothetical situation - I would throw out the two injured chaps. But in reality, it wouldn't be "I" but "we" who would do the throwing out. "We" as in all the uninjured passengers.
Let me modify a statement in your post - "I would value no life greater (instead of less) than mine." All of the passengers (injured or not) would feel this way. It's just that the uninjured ones are in a more powerful position (numerically and physically), to enforce this view and see to their self-preservation.
Thus they would see to it that their combined safety is not threatened by this injured duo, who would consequently be fed to the local marine life :)
It boils down to an individual desire to live, I suppose.
not enough facts provided - what of the food supply? because there could be option three, which would be to let the two chaps bleed out, then eat them to survive (riffing on speluncean explorers)
Hello. The boat will sink if two people aren't thrown out right now, and ergo, cannot wait until they bleed out, irrespective of whether there's much food or not.
I fot zat was clear in the post. 'Pollygise.
Post a Comment