The defendants in this case are not guilty of murder, as according to the penal code. They did not directly murder the swimmers. They may have indirectly murdered them by pushing them away and placing them in a position to die, but they did not do this with "malice aforethought." They had to make a choice between two risks. They could have risked letting the swimmers on the boat and getting sunk, or pushed them away. From a legal perspective, there is a clear way out of this by pointing out that the lives of the people on the boat were protected from further risk by keeping the swimmers off the boat.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
Tough question. This is an incredibly tricky situation that did not seem to have a clear answer. There is no honor in surviving at the expense of indirectly killing others. However, there is no honor in risking the lives of all the people on the boat for the few swimmers. Either way, you have risks. You have the certain death of the two swimmers, or the possible death of everyone via the boat sinking. If one were to try to play around in the middle and let the swimmers on just to see if it would work (prepared to push them back off if the boat were to sink), one might be creating an even more chaotic situation where a possible fight could break out on a sinking boat. This is mostly likely a lose-lose situation. I think that although it would not have been the smartest thing to do, they should have tried to let the people on the boat just to see what would have happened. This would most likely be thinking from emotions rather than pure left brained logic, but morally, this would have been the right decision. In the heat of the moment, where the people may be in shock and/or full of adrenaline to stay in survival mode, radical decisions are likely to be made, so this is probably not a situation to even consider the idea of morality. From left-brained thinking, the crew made the right decision. From right-brained thinking, or considering morality, they did not, in my opinion. Either way, they cannot be blamed!
What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say? (For the ethical theories, see p. 7-14)
A utilitarian philosopher have advised that the crew go through with pushing the swimmers away from the boat. Because the utilitarian philosopher advises that decisions be made based on the well being of everyone affected, keeping the swimmers from possibly sinking the boat would put overall less people at risk. A Deontology philosopher would have based his/her decision on morals of the actions themselves, rather than the consequences of the actions. Therefore, they would have advised that they rescue the swimmers because it is simply inhumane to leave people to freeze and die in the middle of the ocean. Again, going back to the use of the brain, the utilitarian philosopher would focus on using left brain while the deontologist would focus on using the right brain, or emotions, to make important decisions.
That’s a good argument to point out the lack of “malice aforethought.” You also create an interesting hypothetical situation in your answer to question 2, and you note the difference between rational and emotional ways of decision making when it comes to morality. Which one do you think one should use given we have the choice? By the way, the deontologist would not use emotions to make their decisions, but it is not so clear what the deontologist’s decision would be in this case. For the deontologist it would matter that the principle of our action can be such that we can wish it to hold for everyone, and that we treat persons as ends in themselves. According to the latter principle we cannot leave the swimmers in the water in order so save the others on the boat.
ReplyDeleteHi Professor!
DeleteBetween rational and emotional decisions, or left brained and right brained thinking (respectively), I think it all comes down to the type of decision being made. In terms of major decisions such as choosing a life path or a lover, I believe we should trust our intuition and emotions, as long as it is not out of fear or done hastily. As cliche as it sounds, I think we should always look inside ourselves and trust our hearts while making these big decisions. Looking outside of ourselves can bring us into a career that we may end up hating later on. For example, choosing a path just for money is looking outside of ourselves. Of course, emotional decisions can yield bad results when made in the spur of the moment, but I believe trusting our long term, deepest emotions and intuitions would be a very safe bet. Rationality should be used mostly in situations where discipline is required. Left-brained tasks require this type of decision making in my opinion. But in the end, I think right brained thinking (out of love and honesty, NOT fear) should be the basis of our major paths and big picture decisions in life. I don't think that a type of thinking dominated by rationality will bring us true happiness in today's somewhat materialistic society (which actually seems to encourage this type of thinking).
Oops I made a mistake in that judgement! I agree, a deontologist would not use emotions to make his/her decisions. Making decisions based on morality is not necessarily an emotional decision.