The Overcrowded Lifeboat

[MPGGPM 0]

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.

I think where I disagree with you is that you are assuming that had they thrown the captain overboard....(which I think would have been just).......that the others couldn't have thought of a way to save themselves without him.

I find it hard to believe that among so many....not a one could have figured out a way to save themselves, and maybe would have thought of something even better, where so many wouldn't have been sacrificed to save a few. It's possible someone else might have come up with a better plan, had they been given the opportunity.

And regardless.....................I still firmly believe , that the captain was responsible for hitting the iceberg, and should have volunteered to be thrown over. And in fact, had he more courage and conviction......he would have just gone down with the ship when it sank.

Maybe he was a strong rower.........but it's also possible that he just used his position of authority to save himself. We'll never know..............

Apparently, the rest of the people on the lifeboat were good at following orders.....and just did what they were told. To me, it appears the only reason the captain stayed alive, was because he used his position to save himself.

I don't see the captain as a hero....but a coward.......and responsible for their predicament in the first place. How can he be a hero when he himself, most likely was responsible for the ship hitting the iceberg to begin with?

[mybackpages 0]

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.

Jenn- I agree its a great post. What separates us in our conclusions I think is this- you have a much more pragmatic approach to the reality of the situation. Remember the nanny in Babel leaving the children to go find help? I think my approach is to take a much more idealistic or noble - perhaps emotional? approach. There are things that are right to do and I would have to make a decision based on this hoping that the conclusion would turn out better than the reality of the facts might appear. INn the end if we all perish, then we perished doing the right thing.

or maybe its simply that I do not have the stomach to accept that it is best to save a few lives at the expensive of sacrificing the weak.

Perhaps the best answer to this problem is not to punish the Captain, but to go after the company who did not adequately provide for all passengers.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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

Problem was that standards for ships at that time were only updated on occasion when a new tonnage-level "barrier" was breached.

Even as late as 1912, this was the case--the highest number standardised then was for a 10,000-tonne ship--only revised when the 46,000-plus-tonne Titanic sank on her maiden voyage!

I support LS's statement that (for the 1842 case) the captain should have gone down with the ship.

Edited March 26, 2007 by CherryXS

[JohnK 0]

If I were the prosecuter I would have pointed out this: 1) The lifeboat was only threatened by the storm so 2) The captain DID NOT know for sure whether or not anyone would have drowned. So tossing people overboard based upon a possibly incorrect assumption that everyone would die if you did not do so was wrong and therefore murder.

Edited March 26, 2007 by JohnK