1) I believe that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a human being, with a purpose of intend to kill. The first mate wanted only the strong people on the lifeboat because he needed those who were capable of rowing the boat throughout the ocean. He than commanded the crew members to push the swimmers that tried to climb on the boat even after they were told that they were not allowed on the boat. This makes them guilty of murder because to get themselves to safety by the use of the ones who they choose to keep on the boat, they let others die. One of them being a woman who was three weeks pregnant.
2) The actions of the crew members were morally wrong. As the crew members it is their responsibility to protect the passengers and put their lives at risk to protect them. By not allowing and pushing people who they classified as being weak, is not only morally wrong but also in-humanitarian and barbaric. The passengers went on this cruise putting their safety into the hands of the crew members and the crew members decided to leave them behind for being weak.
3) An utilitarian philosopher such as John Stuart mill and Jeremy Bentham would have argued that the crew members and the first mate acted for the greater good. They would have said if the five remaining people were taken on the boat than every single person on that boat would have died leaving no survivors. They would have looked more in the future consequences that if five people have to die for twenty 23 people to live than they would find the defendants not guilty. The reason they would have supported their actions would be because more lives were saved than deaths that took place. A Deontology philosopher such as Kant would have opposed the utilitarian philosopher. Stating that it does not matter about the consequences but it's rather the fact on what is the right thing to do. Kant disagrees with the basic premises of all consequentialist theories and believes more on what is morally right.
You make an interesting argument by claiming that the people let on the boat were used, and apparently you don’t make a distinction between killing and letting die. Take a look at Danny C’s and Jairo J’s answers and my comments regarding this distinction.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also a good point that the crew had a responsibility to protect the passengers – so do you think they should have sacrificed themselves for the passengers?
You give a nice analysis of the case from the utilitarian point of view, and you are correct that Kant would disagree with this judgment. What would Kant’s reasoning be?