Short Paper Lifeboat Problem: Thinking Back On The Virtual P

2 2 Short Paper Lifeboat Problemthinking Back On The Virtual Philosop

Back on the virtual philosopher's platform, the lifeboat problem presents a classic ethical dilemma: should one push the 400-pound man out of the boat to save the other 10 people or refuse to do so, risking everyone’s demise? The scenario involves a sinking boat with a capacity for 10 individuals, but there are 11 people aboard, including the oversized man. With no rescue imminent, the decision revolves around utilitarian ethics versus deontological principles, and the choice to act or refrain reflects differing moral frameworks.

The utilitarian approach, driven by the greatest good for the greatest number, would justify pushing the 400-pound man overboard. This decision minimizes overall harm because saving 10 lives outweighs the harm caused to one individual. According to Mill’s utilitarianism, actions are morally right if they promote happiness and reduce suffering (Mill, 1863). In this case, sacrificing one person ensures the survival of the remaining ten, aligning with utilitarian logic. Additionally, the scenario emphasizes outcome-based reasoning—actions are judged solely by their consequences, advocating for a decision that results in the highest net well-being.

Conversely, from a deontological perspective, one must consider the moral duties and rights involved. Kantian ethics argue that individuals possess inherent dignity and should never be sacrificed solely for the sake of others (Kant, 1785). Pushing the man out of the boat would violate his moral worth, treating him merely as a means to an end, which Kantian ethics prohibits. Therefore, the decision to refrain from pushing him aligns with the principle that individuals should never be used solely as a means to save others, emphasizing respect for individual rights even when the outcome might be disastrous.

Another perspective involves virtue ethics, which considers moral character and virtues such as courage, compassion, and justice. An ethically virtuous person might weigh the scenario carefully, considering compassion for those at risk, but also justice towards the individual who is burdened with his size. Virtue ethics encourages moral deliberation based on what a virtuous person would do in such a situation, possibly advocating for a compassionate yet just decision that recognizes the humanity of all involved.

In sum, the utilitarian framework supports pushing the overweight man to maximize survival, while deontological ethics oppose such an action to preserve moral integrity and individual rights. This dilemma underscores the complexity of moral decision-making, especially when ethical theories conflict. The choice hinges on whether one prioritizes outcomes or adherence to moral duties, illustrating the importance of understanding diverse ethical perspectives in navigating moral crises.

Paper For Above instruction

The lifeboat problem exemplifies a profound ethical challenge that forces individuals to confront the difficult balance between consequentialist and deontological moral frameworks. On one side, utilitarianism advocates for actions that produce the greatest overall happiness, often prompting decisions that sacrifice individual rights for collective survival (Mill, 1863). Conversely, Kantian ethics emphasize moral duties and the intrinsic worth of every person, forbidding actions that use individuals as mere means (Kant, 1785). The choice to push the overweight man or not can be understood through these contrasting perspectives, illustrating their implications in real-life moral dilemmas.

Applying utilitarian principles, the decision to push the man aligns with maximizing the survival chances of the majority. This approach evaluates the outcome—saving ten lives at the expense of one—considered the morally correct action because it minimizes total suffering. From a consequentialist point of view, the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its results, and in this context, sacrificing one life ensures the greatest good for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, key proponents of utilitarianism, argue that the moral action is the one that produces the maximum happiness and minimizes pain (Mill, 1863; Bentham, 1789).

On the other hand, Kantian ethics would oppose pushing the man out because it violates the moral duty to treat individuals as ends, not merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785). Kant emphasized that moral actions originate from duty and respect for persons’ dignity, regardless of the consequences. In this scenario, pushing the man would be morally impermissible because it involves actively harming an individual based solely on his size, which conflicts with the categorical imperative to uphold unconditional respect for others. Kantian morality stresses that moral actions should be guided by principles that could be universally applied, and thus, sacrificing the man cannot be justified within this framework.

Virtue ethics offers another lens, focusing on character traits and moral virtues. A virtuous individual would consider virtues such as compassion, justice, and wisdom when making the decision. Virtue ethics encourages moral deliberation that seeks a middle ground, and a virtuous person might argue for considering the circumstances and the moral character involved. While compassion may incline one to save others at all costs, justice demands respecting the dignity of every individual, thus complicating the decision. This approach highlights moral nuance and the importance of moral character in ethical decision-making (Aristotle, 4th century BCE).

Deciding whether to push the man or not involves weighing these conflicting ethical principles. The utilitarian view prioritizes collective well-being, while Kantian ethics uphold individual rights and moral duties. Virtue ethics provides a more character-driven, context-sensitive perspective, emphasizing moral virtues and practical wisdom. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach can guide moral agents in navigating complex dilemmas like the lifeboat problem. Ultimately, this scenario underscores the importance of comprehensive ethical reflection in making morally responsible choices under duress.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Aristotle. (4th century BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and Vices. University of California Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking. Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.