Of course, the Royal Marines have a somewhat more clear-cut duty in these circumstances, as per a noted authority on the subject:
I disagree. Eventually you have to eat someone.
I voted that Leroy has as much right as anybody to live. That said, I think that Leroy and the others on the final lifeboat have an obligation to do all they can to attempt to preserve the lives of others. They could accomplish this by taking turns in the water (given reasonably calm seas), trying to improvise a raft from flotsam and jetsam, etc. In a survival situation you have the obligation to ensure your own life first. If that can be done easily, then you ought to attept to help others.
Well, if we can fit in twenty skinny ladies with babies or ten fat people, then yeah, at least by sheer numbers.
And damn you, Mr. Excellent - I was going to post that. I went to a mayoral forum a while ago where one candidate (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) went on for ages about saving homeless women and children first, like that isn’t insulting as shit (because clearly homeless women are more deserving?) and he kept saying “We’ll call it the Titanic Protocol” blah blah blah - look, dumbass, it already has a name.
Sorry. 
By the way - though I’m sure that candidate was thoroughly dim, he did sort of have a point about prioritizing homeless women and children. At least in the international development field, there’s strong evidence that improving the lives of women through education, health care and so on has a greater “trickle-down” effec than aid directed towards the population generally, insofar as women are caring for depending children who benefit from having healthier and more capable mothers. It’s not that women are “more deserving” - but money directed towards them sometimes goes farther.
I’d feel bad, but that mother and child would be flat out fucked.
ETA: You know, on second thought, I’d offer to erect a memorial for the mother and child.
And that’s why you should buy trip insurance.
Yeah, but he wasn’t just talking about acutely homeless people (and why, if you’re an acutely homeless man, don’t you deserve it?) like families living in cars - he honestly thought we should be prioritizing all homeless women over all homeless men. I’m a public librarian. I know some chronically homeless women I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire.
IU voted for what I would do (give up the seat), but really it’s not an ethical choice I can make for somebody else. It’s really just about whatever Leroy can live with afterwards. I don’t see how anyone but a stone sociopath could be ok with killing a mother and baby to save himself, but clearly there are people who feel they could. I know I could never feel good about myself again, and life is not that important anyway.
I think “right to live” is a red herring, by the way. What he has a right to do is irrelevant. That isn’t the question.
Double post
I disagree with the “stone psychopath” part. Self-preservation is one of the strongest human instincts. Choosing to save yourself rather than some stranger (even a baby stranger) is not psychopathic. Now, if the guy used his superior strength to shove the mother and baby out of the way so he could beat them to the spot in the boat, then yeah, that’s moving toward psychopathic. But if he’s there first and they show up afterward…well, it could be debated whether he’s morally right or if he has any societal obligation, but psychopathic is pushing it. And once again, IMO this refers only to the baby, since many humans do have a strong drive to ensure the survival of children, even at the risk of their own lives. But the “women” part of “women and children” first, in the face of certain death, just eludes me. Maybe if the possibility existed that men, with their greater physical strength, would have a chance of doing something like holding on to the boat, etc., then yeah. But certain death? As long as people behave civilly (not shoving each other out of boats and whatnot) then it’s up to each individual whether he or she wants to give up a spot. Gender is (or should be) irrelevant.
Many would disagree with you about that second part. If I were Leroy, I would feel bad about myself, sure. It’s possible I might even choose to give up my spot. But I certainly wouldn’t feel obligated to do so. If I wanted to live and I made it to the boat first, then I’d keep my spot.
Also, “killing a mother and baby” isn’t what he’s doing. He’s refusing to save them, not killing them. The ocean is killing them. It’s a difference that does matter.
I seriously doubt Leroy would, say, saw their heads off with a hacksaw. Then he’d take his chances in the water instead.
I see no ethical difference between those two scenarios. For me, refusing to give up the seat is ethically identical to holding the baby underwater and drowning it myself. It would take an emotional coldness and selfishness that I’m not capable of. To me, it would not be worth living if I just wanted to blow my brains out every day afterwards.
To me, this rings as nothing but a bullshit rationalization. If it were me, I would feel as though I were making the conscious decision to murder them to save myself. I lack the coldness it would take to be able to live with myself afterwards.
If it’s my family I’d give up the seat, I doubt I’d even think twice. A strangers family? I THINK my instinct would be to get up but I don’t think I’d do it. Added to the equation for me is that I have an issue with drowning, so not only would I be dying, I’d be dying in terror. No strangers are worth that to me. The reaper comes for us all eventually it’s just their turn.
I think it’s interesting in hypothetical’s women and children seem to be valued highly, in normal everyday reality not-so-much.
But why? Why is your life inherently less valuable than someone else’s? That’s the part I don’t get. That reeks of altruism, and not the good kind. The kind where people are made to feel that their own happiness should be sacrificed to the happiness of others, simply because the others are others. Yeah, I know, it sounds all Objectivist and stuff. But seriously–why is the life of another person more valuable, or worthy of saving than yours, given that you’re already in the boat, you’re both passengers (you’re not an officer or anything) and you have a reasonable belief that if you give up your seat, you will die?
I can certainly understand why you, as an individual, might choose to give up your seat to save the mother and baby. Every person has to make that value judgment on their own. But to say it’s ethically identical to murdering the baby? That’s the part I don’t get. There’s only one seat. If you value your own life, I don’t see anything ethically wrong with refusing to give it up for a stranger. I find it very hard to believe that adding the baby’s weight to the boat would cause it to sink (if it did, then just have everybody toss their shoes overboard to make up the weight). But the mother is another adult. The baby is too young to know the difference, and will no doubt be adopted by a loving family. So basically to give up your spot to save the mother, you’re putting the baby’s (transitory) feelings over your own life. Again, if you truly want to do it, then great. But nobody should feel obligated to, simply because they’re a man and she’s a woman (or a mother).
Well, if you think about it, you see that the women before men thing is usually justified by saying that you need more women to maintain the species. Which means that the value of women is entirely in their reproductive ability, with a dash of condescension thrown in for their weakness.
I don’t know that this is thought through as well as you might think. While the OP is about Leroy, it is noted that there are many other people already on the boat and none of them seem to be doing something either. Regardless of who gives up their spot, someone else WILL most likely die to ensure the chance of the mother and child. By extension you are saying that everyone in the situation is also a murderer.
Since we cannot escape the high probability of the loss of a human life we have to do the cold calculations. The baby is useless in a survival situation. Leroy on the other hand is a physically capable adult male with some technical experience with watercraft. His skill set is quite useful to the survival chances of the others on board. The mother is an unknown factor as are the other passengers already on the craft.
If I was Leroy I’d first put out a shout to see if Dio was also on the boat and let him deal with it 
Don’t know what I’d do. Probably stay seated. I’ve gone into water to get someone out but that’s different as I was confident in my swimming and life saving abilty to get the guy out of the water. Knowing you’re going to die is another thing altogether and I wouldn’t even guess what I’d do because I don’t think most people actually know how they’d react until that horrible moment.
That’s pretty much what I was thinking. I also didn’t want to risk skewing the results by asking if the mother was hot.
To bastardise Clint Eastwood life is all I have and all I’m ever going to have.