Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Moral dilema regarding men stranded on an island.

Rate this topic


skap35

Recommended Posts

I was watching The Island of Dr. Moreau and it got me to thinking. In the beginning scene there are three people lost at sea. There is exactly enough water for one person. Two of the people begin fighting over the last of the water supply.

What is the morally correct way of dealing with this situation? As far as I understand it, Rand's concept of "rational self interest" suggests that I fight for the last of the water for my own survival. However, that entails that I murder the other people for my own survival. Am I correct in my understanding?

If I am in a desperate situation and my survival depends on the premptive destruction of my potential opponents, am I morally correct in doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a little more context is needed before you can really answer that question. For instance, whose water is it? If you brought the water then you are certainly justified in killing him if he tries to steal it. On the other hand, I don't think that it could be considered moral to steal someone's water and kill them directly or indirectly, even in an emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much water is "exactly enough water for one person?" Is it just enough for one sip? Is it enough for two sips? Or is it enough for one man to live a day/week/month with it? Whatever the scenario, there is a problem with it:

If it's only enough water for a few sips, drinking it won't keep you alive much longer than if you didn't drink it. If there is more water, then sharing is possible and that is the best option in such situations. Even if sharing it means that there would only be enough for half a day or a day, it is still the best option, because if you don't share then soon enough you will be alone and lost in the ocean. Have fun finding your own way back home or anywhere where there's land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a little more context is needed before you can really answer that question. For instance, whose water is it? If you brought the water then you are certainly justified in killing him if he tries to steal it. On the other hand, I don't think that it could be considered moral to steal someone's water and kill them directly or indirectly, even in an emergency.

It didn't belong to any one person. It was just part of the general ration supply that was on the raft.

How much water is "exactly enough water for one person?" Is it just enough for one sip? Is it enough for two sips? Or is it enough for one man to live a day/week/month with it?
The movie didn't specify. The narrator just refers to it as "the last of the fresh water." And the man who survived the fighting had just enough to live until he was rescued.

Basically it comes down to this: whoever wins gets to live, but first he has to kill the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am in a desperate situation and my survival depends on the premptive destruction of my potential opponents, am I morally correct in doing so?

The "lifeboat" scenario, or emergency scenario, has been discussed on here many times. You can search and find several threads on it I'm sure.

The short answer is, morality does not generally apply to emergency situations where your choice is either life or death. Essentially that means, you have no reasonable choice. One factor that can change this however is to what degree you are responsible for creating your emergency situation.

In contrast, many religions and other philosophies try to ground morality on the emergency situation, as opposed normal daily situations in which men actually have reasonable choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I think it would be likely that wounds resulting from your fight would cause you to lose more water than was on the boat if so little was left. If not, then just the sweating and exertion of a life and death struggle would account for most or all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once heard Andy Bernstein answer a similar lifeboat question. Someone asked him, "If you and another person were stranded on a desert island and there was a boat only able to hold one of you, what would morality say you should do?" Without skipping a beat, Andy said, "Build a bigger boat." His point was that lifeboat scenerios are designed to cut man's mind off from his survival, but that even in real-life lifeboat scenerios, that is not the case. Thinking is still man's basic means of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once heard Andy Bernstein answer a similar lifeboat question. Someone asked him, "If you and another person were stranded on a desert island and there was a boat only able to hold one of you, what would morality say you should do?" Without skipping a beat, Andy said, "Build a bigger boat." His point was that lifeboat scenerios are designed to cut man's mind off from his survival, but that even in real-life lifeboat scenerios, that is not the case. Thinking is still man's basic means of survival.

I agree that's an interesting response. It's akin to Kirk's answer to the no win test of the Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Of course, later in the movie Kirk learns that it's not so easy to cheat reality.

However, it does not negate the concept that thinking is man's basic means of survival to understand that in some circumstances, no amount of reason or thinking over a limited amount of time will change a situation, create resources that don't exist, etc. I would suggest his point moreso illustrates the difficulty of stating a hypothetical that is so complete in context that it can't be thought around. That the scenario and question lacked sufficient context doesn't mean a real life situation could not occur in which the "moral" question would still be open for evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it does not negate the concept that thinking is man's basic means of survival to understand that in some circumstances, no amount of reason or thinking over a limited amount of time will change a situation, create resources that don't exist, etc. I would suggest his point moreso illustrates the difficulty of stating a hypothetical that is so complete in context that it can't be thought around. That the scenario and question lacked sufficient context doesn't mean a real life situation could not occur in which the "moral" question would still be open for evaluation.

Oh, I agree and I thing Andy would as well. But his point, or mine anyway, was that it's not even worth discussing true lifeboat situations because by their very nature, there are no principles to discuss. All you can say about them is they are outside the realm of ethics. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you can say about them is they are outside the realm of ethics. That's it.

I agree. One of the reasons I'm not a big fan of hypotheticals (even outside of emergency examples) is because of the difficulty of describing a full context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie didn't specify. The narrator just refers to it as "the last of the fresh water." And the man who survived the fighting had just enough to live until he was rescued.

This is called evasion. The director conveniently ignores the facts I mentioned and hopes nobody would notice this. This is a good way to send a bad message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I think you are morally entitled to do all you can to keep that water to yourself - if you so choose.

I have often wonder what I would do if I were faced with the option of either shooting a woman or her child - and I have always thought I would instead turn the gun on myself.

I agree that these sorts of hypothetical situations are tricky - as you cannot describe the whole context.

In the situation I have described - that is simply what I would choose to do. Someone who chose to shoot the mother or the child is in no worse situation than me morally. They have simply chosen to something else. In fact, they could be in a stronger situation morally. It is just that I would feel very guilty, and so I think I would rather shoot myself.

In the case of the last of the water - I would do all I could to keep that water for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in that particular situation, why would anyone need to be shot? Why is shooting mothers and children even being brought up? Why do we assume that just because there is only enough water for "one." that all others must die BEFORE the water is drank?

It may be that one person drank the water and will now just die 7 days after the other. I could be that they are able to find fresh water elsewhere (Saltwater is, somewhat, drinkable if strained through a shirt or other porous fabric). Seems kind of rediculous to me.

We once had to do a thing in school just like this. Boat's sinking and you have one lifeboat that holds seven passengers and you have 10 people to save. They each have certain qualificatons (i.e. mother/doctor/child/lawyer). I got in trouble because I refused to do the assignment. What was funny about it too, was that you could not choose to stay with the sinking ship, you had to save yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would anyone need to be shot? Why is shooting mothers and children even being brought up?

I brought the shooting mothers and children angle up because I wanted to give an exampl of a case in which I would rather not do all I could to stay alive. In the case of one glass of water on Dr Moureau's secret island, I would do all I could. It is just the choice I would make in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...