Or, another Rhymer poll. Today’s imaginary protagonist is named, for no particular reason, Leroy. Here’s the sitch:
Leroy’s a passenger on a cruise ship in the Atlantic. One day, when they ship is about midway between London & New York, there’s a series of explosions. The ship’s sinking, and sinking fast; moreover, many of the lifeboats have been destroyed.
Leroy manages to make it to one of said boats–the very last one, in fact. When he gets to it, it’s already close to overloaded, and his mass makes it that much worse; it’s clear that nobody else can get in. In fact, Leroy’s built and sold a few boats in his time, and in his judgment, even another ten pounds will be too much. iThey’re about to cast off when they hear someone calling out “Wait! Please, please wait” Turning around, they see a woman running up to the boat. She’s a little lighter than Leroy–maybe twenty pounds or so–and she’s carrying a young child–let’s say a year old or so—who probably closes the weight gap between her and Leroy.
Everyone pauses. Leroy looks around. The ship’s foundering, and the lifeboat needs to get gone but quick. Nobody’s volunteering to give up their space for this woman.
Should Leroy give up his seat even if this mother and child are unrelated to him? What if they are, say, his sister and her baby? What if it’s his wife/partner and child? Does it matter if Leroy has kids of his own? A wife of his own?
Oh, and for purposes of this poll, “kids of his own” means “pre-adolescent children of whom he is the custodial parent or guardian.”
I don’t believe that we have, as a rule, a moral obligation to sacrifice our lives for other people. The instinctive fear of death runs too deep for that - a moral code that stated “you must sacrifice your life under-such-and-such circumstances to be a good person” would be too onerous to be useful. There are exceptions, in some narrow cases - I can imagine cases in which soldiers or emergency first-responders might feel a moral obligations to sacrifice their lives. But those are the exceptions.
That being said - I hope that, were I Leroy, I’d give up my seat for the unrelated mother and child. I doubt I would - choosing to die is surely difficult, and as an atheist, I could not console myself with comforting fairy tales. But I would like to be the sort of man who could do that.
I would not want to carry around the guilt of letting a one-year old die. Also it would be hard to live with myself knowing that I’m a coward. Of course it is easy to be brave in a hypothetical situation. Still I like to believe I would do the right thing.
I choose that he should take the baby. Leroy has just as much of a right to live as the woman and child does so he shouldn’t be giving up his seat if he got there first. The OP’s written so that Leroy shouldn’t give his seat up, but shouldn’t also drag the woman off the boat if she got there first.
And I wouldn’t limit it to just children. If Leroy has a wife, why wouldn’t she also be thought of in his calculations? Or hell, even parents or siblings?
I’m female and I voted for taking the baby. This is not to say that I think Leroy is a fool if he gives up his seat. In fact, I would have the greatest respect for him if he did so. But I’m not going to require that he does more than take the baby.
I’m halfway between “Leroy should take the baby and stay on the boat,” and “He has as much right to live as anybody” (which is what I voted).
This is a tough question, though–I think the only real obligation here is to give his life to save his own child (which wasn’t one of the choices). Even doing it to save his wife is not as clearcut–why is her life inherently more valuable than his? Most people probably would do it if they love their spouse (and I’m not putting a gender on it, either–female lives are not inherently more valuable than male lives, nor are children’s more than adults’) but it isn’t an obligation, per se.
And if it’s a stranger–why? I wouldn’t die to save a stranger. I’d take the baby if I could do it and still keep my spot. But I wouldn’t give up my life for a random stranger. If that makes me selfish, then so be it. I’ll be selfish and alive. I would never screw over another person to further myself, either, btw. If they had the spot first, I wouldn’t expect them to give it up for me–man or woman.
Whenever any society no longer follows the basic concept of ‘women and children first’ it is no longer a long term viable society.
I know that probably makes me a sexist. But at some fundamental level I believe that there will always be situations were men are expected to protect women and children, even at the expense of their own lives.
As for whether Leroy has kids of his own yet, it is not relevant. He should have knocked up Mary Ann Rottencrotch at the drive-in in high school when he had his chance.
Unless the baby weighs less than ten pounds, then Leroy can’t take the baby or he dooms the whole boat.
A child that young needs its parent. I would hope that I would step aside and save them both. I think it would be the right thing to do regardless of Leroy’s relationship with the woman and child. Leroy’s own children would enter into it only if there was no Mrs. Leroy in the picture to look after them (since his kids need a parent as well and are his actual responsibility.)
I’ll go further–I don’t believe that we have a “moral obligation” to do anything, because the concept of a “moral obligation” is meaningless.
That being said, if I were Leroy, I would give up my spot for the mother and child. I don’t think I’d be able to live with myself if I didn’t. I can swim and could probably find something to cling to (the explosions were helpful in that regard), so I’d fare better than a woman holding a baby.
I would think it’s admirable for Leroy to give up his place to save the woman and child, but it shouldn’t be absolutely required. Also, why should he be the only one in the lifeboat to sacrifice himself for this woman? Because he was the last one on the boat before her? Should any single or childless adult on the lifeboat have to sacrifice themselves? I think that it’s not a given that the life of a parent or married person is inherently more valuable or worth saving than that of an unmarried or childless person.
It’s different if it’s his kid - then it would be more expected that he’d sacrifice himself to save his child. If it was his wife then they could decide together which of them should get on the lifeboat.
Sorry, I know the thoretical proper answer would be for Leroy to give up his place on the boat for the woman and child, but honestly Leroy has a family he has obligations to as well. If it were mrAru I admit I am selfish but I would want him to survive.
It’d be nice and awesome if Leroy gave up his space for the woman and child, but it’d be just as nice and awesome if any other damn person on the boat would, too.
It’d also be nice if a woman would give up her spot on the boat if Leroy came over last, yelling to wait.
That means it’s nice and awesome if someone goes way above and is willing to sacrifice their life for the life/lives of others. It’s still not wrong if they don’t.
As someone pointed out upthread, Leroy has experience with boats, and he’s already realized that they’re close to the breaking point of this one. (It doesn’t matter whether he’s right or not, by the way; this is what he believes to be the case, and obviously part of what he’ll be using in his moral calculation.) As my best old ex-friend Ray used to say, “Knowledge has consequences.” He doesn’t know that anyone else knows this, and there’s no time to explain or argue.*
Just “more” expected?
There is a word for a man who would refuse to sacrifice his life for his child in such a circumstance. That word is motherfucker.** And in my neck of the woods, you’re not allowed to suggest that your wife die while you live either. ghardester’s right on target.
*Apropos of nothing, he’s named Leroy after Leroy Jethro Gibbs. But we know what he’d do. Well…I guess the people who don’t watch NCIS don’t know, but everybody else does.
**I started to write worthless motherfucking asshole who deserves nothing short of death by fire, but that’s eleven words.
Leroy should turn to the heaviest person on the boat and say “hey, you. That kid and their mother need a spot”
That way not only would the number of potential lives saved increase (two for one!), but if the boat’s that low in the water he’s improving everybody’s chances.
Failing that - yes, ideally he should give up his seat (again - two lives saved for the price of one). But I wouldn’t judge him harshly if he didn’t
How does he enforce this? We know he’s not an officer on the ship; we’ve no reason to think he’s armed; and we can logically assume that he is neither Superman (who would not suffer from any dilemma anyway, as he’d have flown everybody to safety already), Batman (who would have prepared for the ship sinking and have already summoned an embezzled Wayne Industries ship to come save them) or Chuck Norris (who would simply kick the ocean into submission and then make a raft out of his beard).
But we know what he’d do. Well…I guess the people who don’t watch NCIS don’t know, but everybody else does.