Overcrowded Lifeboat

Do you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder (see the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in their action? (See definition on p. 2). Why or why not?
In a legal perspective, I believe the defendants are innocent and justified. The state’s penal code states that murder is the killing of a human being with intent to kill. Surely the first mate of the lifeboat did not intend to kill the five passengers he refused onboard. One can ask whether refusal (with knowledge that it will likely result in their deaths) is considered an action as well. Though I sympathize with this argument, I think that’s a moral argument and unable to be handled well in a strictly legal sense. 
There were initially twenty-three passengers on a lifeboat that had capacity to hold one more. That the first-mate chose the strongest male among the stranded makes sense because that individual could contribute most effectively to rowing their way into survival. The first-mate calculated and acted on what objectively served the best interest for the majority. While the resulting five deaths are real, saddening and controversial- the defendants made the proper choices in maximizing survival for the majority, legally.

Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
In the situation of the lifeboat, refusing the stranded passengers led to their deaths. Though the first-mate did not perform an action that killed these passengers, his inaction inevitably did. I think that morality applies to both positive and negative actions. In other words, it matters equally what you choose to do as well as, don’t do.
Of course there are practical factors that severely limited the first-mate’s action. This is the most difficult part for me, and I’m not sure what I would’ve done in the exact context. My own views on morality would resemble Kant’s deontological approach and his categorical imperative. I recognize that following this doesn’t necessarily lead to positive outcomes, but I think that they are compatible for the most part. I think that remaining crew members should’ve forfeited their seats. They could’ve drifted alongside the boat while still directing the route to the main shipping channel. Though there is a risk of drowning, their training and experience at sea offer better chances of survival than stranded passengers but most especially the pregnant lady. I find that these extreme circumstances, where the few alternatives offered are equally dim and risky, resolving the concept of morality becomes more urgent.

What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say? (For the ethical theories, see p. 7-14)
The utilitarian belief system is a consequence centered approach that maximizes happiness (benefit) for the majority in a moral situation. There is some disagreement on the definitions of happiness and benefit. The reading poses this distinction well, “Is the pleasure derived from…writing a great novel really no better than the pleasure associated with getting drunk?” (Adams 9) There is also some divergence in how far this principle can be applied; the individual, or the larger rules of society. In the case of the overcrowded life boat, the utilitarian is likely to argue in defense of the first-mate’s actions because he maximized the happiness of the twenty-four people that he saved. It seems at first, that since lives saved outweighs the lives lost, the right decision was made. To properly apply utilitarianism, however, you would have to agree on concepts of happiness and application of the principle. For example, a type of utilitarianism believes that there are higher and lower forms of happiness may be at odds with saving lives as the greatest type of utility. He/she may argue that the elation of doing a good deed is a higher pleasure than just simply, living. In another sense, one might consider societal rules. Say the public became outraged that they allowed a healthy male to climb onboard rather than an elderly man or pregnant lady. If one considers the utility of society important as well, then the judicial body my feel compelled to convict the first-mate to assuage the public’s outrage. A final point is that one man’s utility is not easily calculated in finite terms. The reading offers the case of a 250lbs. football player who may potentially take two spaces on that ship. A superficial utilitarian approach would demand that individual to sacrifice oneself for the utility of two more bodies. These examples demonstrate that the utilitarian approach is complex and one must agree on certain premises to go forth with this approach.
The deontologist strikes at the moral problem of the overcrowded lifeboat in the opposite way. It emphasizes individual duty and obligation in moral decision-making. The reading uses Immanuel Kant’s writings on his categorical imperative to clarify this point. The categorical imperative states that an individual should deliberate a moral action only if it can be considered universally moral. For example, we can extract the action from the overcrowded lifeboat to treat it independently from its context: the first-mate refuses four passengers on the lifeboat and this inevitably leads to their deaths. Can we imagine the first-mate accepting this fate if the situation were reversed? Would he be willing to sacrifice himself freely to save the lives of the other twenty-four? According to the deontologist, if he is not, then the first-mate’s decision violates the categorical assumption, thus it is immoral.
Kant also talks about human autonomy and our duty to respect it. In short form, we must “act so as to treat others as an end and never as a means alone” (Adams 13) It seems here, that the categorical imperative clashes with the calculating nature of utilitarianism. One cannot prescribe values on human life, and each individual should be treated as one because they are each autonomous. However, both approaches can lead to the same conclusion- in a way. The first-mate’s duty to the survivors in the lifeboat is equally important to the duty to the stranded. The controversial area is that he decided to take on the strong male revealing his maxim, or private rule that was geared towards survival. The deontologist may argue that survival may not have been the most important moral principle, but rather his/her obligation to fulfill the purpose to rescue (even if it were not possible).