The Overcrowded Lifeboat

[Jenn! 918]

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The captain should have gone down with the ship.

I know you would consider me a sexist pig but I would let the woman and children be saved. More could fit in the life boat. Again, I apologize for this backward ideal of mine.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd never get on a ship that doesn't have enough lifeboats.

[Jenn! 918]

The captain should have gone down with the ship.

I know you would consider me a sexist pig but I would let the woman and children be saved. More could fit in the life boat. Again, I apologize for this backward ideal of mine.

Do you mean me? How do you know that? I don't consider that sexist.

I think you have to factor in that "the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing". Would you still save the women and children even if they couldn't row?

I agree that the captain should go down with the ship.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I meant 'you' as the reader.

for me:

math=good

grammar=less gooder

[Jenn! 918]

math=good

grammar=less gooder

I definitely agree with that.

[cbd2cai 0]

I know it is a saying "the captain should go down with the ship" . . . but he didn't and he was the one that had the experience to make decisions . . . so why should he be tried and found guilty of what??

Oh, well, I guess you can't win in a situation like this.

[Jenn! 918]

I know it is a saying "the captain should go down with the ship" . . . but he didn't and he was the one that had the experience to make decisions . . . so why should he be tried and found guilty of what??

Oh, well, I guess you can't win in a situation like this.

He threw the weakest off of the lifeboat to drown.

[peejay 327]

If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

I've pretty much decided he was the incompetent that ran into the iceberg and sunk a passenger ship that was ill equiped to take the number of passengers on board without the proper safety equipment.

I don't know what crime he was charged with, but he should never captain another ship...ever. And the other 29 passengers should have made sure he was the first to have his sorry a$$ thrown overboard. He was lucky to make it to trial alive.

[cbd2cai 0]

I know it is a saying "the captain should go down with the ship" . . . but he didn't and he was the one that had the experience to make decisions . . . so why should he be tried and found guilty of what??

Oh, well, I guess you can't win in a situation like this.

He threw the weakest off of the lifeboat to drown.

OK, well, I guess I passed right over that one . . . I think I should go back to working with my plants . . . at least I know what they are saying! So excuse me for being a brainless idjut today. I think I have other more important things on my mind, that I am trying to escape thinking about. And I should know better than to wander into OT without a paddle.

Edited March 25, 2007 by cbd2cai

[peejay 327]

. . . so why should he be tried and found guilty of what??

He threw the weakest off of the lifeboat to drown.

I didn't snap to that either. In that case he should be swinging by the neck from a rope.

[mybackpages 0]

The captain should have gone down with the ship.

I know you would consider me a sexist pig but I would let the woman and children be saved. More could fit in the life boat. Again, I apologize for this backward ideal of mine.

First weird food and now this. I agree with you! The Captian should have gone done with the ship.

[MPGGPM 0]

The captain was the imbecile most likely responsible for the ship hitting the iceberg. If that wasn't bad enough, he then decided to save his OWN rear end and throw the others off the lifeboat!

First, were I one of the other passengers, I no longer would have trusted his judgement. Second, who the hell gave him the right to decide everyone's fate....especially considering his poor decision making? (captain or not...there were many others aboard.....didn't they have a say?......)

Also, if his decision was to throw the weakest off..........might that not have included himself? Not only was he not of good judgement,(thus, he was no longer a more useful leader than any of the others. Whose to say he wouldn't have run them into ANOTHER iceberg had they not been rescued and he be given the chance?

But what kind of shape was HE in? If he looked anything like the captain in the movie Titanic, he probably wasn't gonna be running in any triathlons any time soon..

Basically though, my opinion is the he was a coward. He bared the most responsiblity for the state and condition that they were all in................and then on top of that, rather than accept his responsibility and do the noble thing....and have HIMSELF thrown off, he was a coward and threw off the others, instead.

Were I on the jury........I'd have voted to lynch him. Or better yet, take him out to sea...........and toss him into the middle of the Atlantic like he did all the others. Give him a taste of his own medicine. (only this time, make sure there are a lot of sharks swimming around in the water when you do it

Edited March 25, 2007 by MPGGPM

[Jenn! 918]

It's been interesting to read the responses here.

The issue of the captain going down with the ship aside, I find this to be quite the moral dilemma. In my assessment of the situation I am assuming that everyone would have died had the captain not thrown the weakest overboard. The story says that "after days of hard rowing" they were found and rescued. I assumed that meant that the hard rowing was necessary to their survival. I also assumed that the captain must have been a strong rower himself, since he was exempt from going overboard. If these assumptions are correct, then I'm having a hard time seeing what other choice the captain had, and I think he should be applauded for saving the lives that he did rather than condemned for the lives that he had to sacrifice.

The only thing that makes me pause is that it seems the unanimous opinion of the others was that they all just die together. I think that makes the issue even more complicated.

[Alex+R 0]

Great post, Jenn.

The captain, IMO, should have chosen the less pragmatic path of rowing into the storm with everyone and perhaps having everyone drown. Who knows, maybe some people would have fallen out anyway.

I think any other choice is sort of dehumanizing.