Another psychology experiment

[problemecium]

I'mma pick on the loophole here: Send the small ship, which uses less fuel. After rescuing a third of the evacuees, see if I can send it again. If all else fails they can use the lifeboats until someone else can pick up the rest.

[[email protected]]

Highly unrealistic scenarios. These morality tests are usually built on the fallacy of fperfect knowledge and don't represent real life scenarios. The relationship between the subject and the people to be rescued is not established, nor are any real life economic values. These tests tell us nothing about how people would actually act in that situation. In fact, given the responses one could presume that most people would probably end up coming up with a very different plan then the two proposed options, which could largely be lumped into the third category of "Those options are dumb, I would innovate or improvise in such a way as to improve upon the available options and if disallowed such action I would not participate at all."

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure why this is called a psychology experiment while it is a philosophical thought experiment. The purpose of these experiments are not to read the human mind and point at people screaming "You are a psychopath for choosing [any choice]" - not saying that the OP planning to do that, it is just the word "psychology" makes it sounds like an exact science, while philosophical dilemmas are not. They are for exploring the quagmire that is human ethics.

Back on to the question. With my rudimentary knowledge of ethics, there are 4 ethical frameworks that can be used here:

1. Consequentialist ethic: Only the end result matters. Using this framework, either of the choice works. If you save people at the end, then it is justified. If you let them die, your choice is not justified. The end justify the means.
   
2. Non-Consequentialist ethic: The action and effort is what matters. In this framework, the best choice is to take the bigger boat and save everyone. Because even if you couldn't save any of them, you did try your best to do so, and that is what matters the most.
   
3. Virtue ethic: What the others in community considered "virtuous" is what matters. It gets fuzzy starting from here. Being able to save everyone is obviously desirable, but if you let everyone die, you are considered incompetent, and may be downright villainous by some due to your incompetence. Perhaps in this case, it is better to save some, rather than let all of them die. You may not be everyone's champion, but you are for some of them. And it matters. (note that this might sound like a glory hound's thinking, but it is more of like "for the greater good" where that "good" is defined by the community around you. So if some people considered your action good, it matters.)
   
4. Situational ethics: What matters is depending on the situation. The most fuzzy kind of ethic. Let's say, if on that sinking ship, 1/3 of passengers are children who will likely die much faster than the adults, you better send out the smaller ship to save them first, because they will probably die even if you got the bigger ship in time for the adults. On the other hand, say on that ship are a bunch of convicts. You are not able to judge who is worth living and who is not. Better try to save them all, but if you didn't make it, it is karma. Situational ethics are damn fuzzy and you can't really decide which is "best" based on some kind of cosmic scale of right and wrong. It is just you and the situation you gotta solve. Find the most information you can and make an informed choice.
   

In the end, this sounds like just an exercise in making excuses though. I hope someone who has better familiarity with ethics to make things clearer, cause I am pretty sure I mess up somewhere.

A game theorist probably would take the choice of saving 1/3 though. A guaranteed chance is a guaranteed chance. You take it.

I have a degree in philosophy and I think these things are a waste of time.

I myself am an Anarcho-Capitalist. You might be most familiar with people like Rothbard or Mises. To put it simply, you have no moral obligation to save any of them, so even if you let them all die by taking neither ship you are not necessarily evil. Granting that you own both ships and the fuel being used you are doing good regardless of which ship you take to the mission. Even taking the smaller ship and choosing who gets aboard by auctioning off the available tickets to the richest doesn't make you evil anymore than showing up and rescuing your own family and children first, or giving the seats out randomly by lottery, or any other method of choosing...its your ship, do as you please. To anyone who objects to this, imagine the ships as being fishing ships, and you are a fisherman, they are your livelihood. If you still think you should take them and spend the last bit of your available fuel and perform a 100% altruistic rescue then I suggest you immediately donate all of your personal belongings to the poor and 100% of all your future earnings, keeping nothing for yourself or family. Not even grocery money or rent, and you definitely should not be playing KSP.

[MasterSounis]

you have no moral obligation to save any of them

Actually, according to article 98 of the preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:

(a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;

( to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him;

© after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.

So, in fact, there is a legal obligation to save lives. Additionally, it becomes a moral obligation through the nature of law. Since it is assumed there is a knowledge of this sinking ship, this fictional captain would, in fact, be required by law to send one of his ships.

[[email protected]]

Actually, according to article 98 of the preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

So, in fact, there is a legal obligation to save lives. Additionally, it becomes a moral obligation through the nature of law. Since it is assumed there is a knowledge of this sinking ship, this fictional captain would, in fact, be required by law to send one of his ships.

I don't mean for anyone to take offense to this...but logically that simply doesn't follow.

Legal and moral are not the same, legal cannot infuse morality into the situation. Law is irrespective of morality. The authority of the state is as fictional as that of god. Moral agency rests entirely in the minds of individuals who must make those decisions.

What governments decree as law is irrelevant. Millions have been massacred in the service of unjust governments, there is no logical connection between law and ethics. Also the United Nations is an unelected body of oligarchs, no one has any obligation to obey their arbitrary decrees.

To say that because something is law that it is therefore also moral is to say that all of the conflicting laws in the worlds nations are moral, and that in some areas certain actions are moral (including some very stomach turning stuff) while others are immoral, and then as soon as you cross over an invisible non-existent boundary other actions are moral, and things that were moral a couple of miles ago are now immoral.

Any connection between law and morality in government is a happy accident. Now, everyone who chooses to ignore these arbitrary decrees known as law may be forced to contend with the consequences of disobeying the government, much as a store owner who doesn't pay protection to the mafia must contend with them. But it has no logical connection to morality.

The only logically consistent set of moral principles I have encountered follows from the principle of self ownership. The only moral authority anyone is obligated to obey is the self. That being given, the ship owner has no moral obligation to intervene, any action he takes is purely of his own compassion. The only exception to this would be if those people on the sinking ships had previously contracted with him to perform rescue missions in the event of X. In which case I would say he has been negligent since he does not have enough fuel to even return to port once one of the ships arrives at the scene.

I will refrain from taking this any further, I'd be happy to discuss it but I don't want to derail someone elses thread, that and I don't think this kind of discussion would be looked upon favorably on these forums.

Edited February 20, 2015 by [email protected]

[MasterSounis]

Ok, that's fine to cease and desist. Plus, unlike much of the rest of the Internet, (if not so uncommon here), you can actually support an opinion. I just feel that a society should feel morally obligated to follow it's laws, even though there is no direct correlation. It seems counterproductive to base any society on self-guided morality, as many would not think about anything but theft and murder for their own gain, and there would be little left over.

In any case, I respect your position even if I do not neccesarily agree with it.

[Colserra3]

I love seeing this being picked apart by logic.

I would've sent the faster ship, you have a guaranteed survival rate of 33%, plus you can say, fill the boat with life jackets and throw them to the people you can't pickup yet, so they can survive longer, or the countless other variations others have posted. The problem I have with these questions is that there's always so many things you can do other than the options presented, which is why these are philosophical questions, not psychological. They don't really provide enough room for you to make a thought-out decision, sure you can use maths to determine the big boat has 50% survival chance, while small boat only has 33%, but there are things you can do to completely reverse that.

Also, I kind of agree with ravensoul6. If attempting to rescue the survivors would put my passengers at risk, I wouldn't do it.

Side note: If I'm in charge of multiple ships, wouldn't that make me an admiral?

[TheDarkStar]

If you run the numbers, you have, on average, 33.3% survival and 50% survival. It's an obvious choice - pick the 50% one.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you run the numbers, you have, on average, 33.3% survival and 50% survival. It's an obvious choice - pick the 50% one.

It's one of those cases where numbers alone, in principle, don't work. The numbers mean that if there were a number of such events happening, then picking one for all of them would statistically result in 33% of people rescued, while picking the other for all of them would statistically result in 50% of people rescued, across all such events. It does not help making a choice for one particular event at all.

Though like I said, picking the smaller ship is simply irresponsible. You don't decide to save a few people unless you have at all no chance to save everyone.