Poll: A Tricky Moral Dilemma

[FalloutJack]

Wiki Snip

While I don't entirely trust Wiki, I'm going to give this tale the benefit of the doubt and say "Whoa". I believe we have found the better man then I, in this case. That is very impressive.

 

[Do4600]

Why would the crew have the option to opt out? If one person opted out why wouldn't each other crew member opt out as well? Opting out is the only way to guarantee survival. When there is meat on the life boat there are endless ways of obtaining it, and surviving until there is meat is the only way to exploit those far less dangerous options. The goal of this game is to survive until there is meat, opting out is the only true way to accomplish that, that is an inevitable problem and anybody who has been starving and considering this system, especially if they are a commander would probably notice the flaw; there is no real way to secure the meat once it's obtained besides binding people that opt out, and you would have to do that to insure that the system functions as intended.

The reality is that nobody on that boat would allow a person to opt out.

 

[Yopaz]

Edit: Please ignore this post. I am done with this.

 

[Arakasi]

that it is somewhat feasable to survive in the open water without food.

Not what I was saying. Not even close. I said it's unlikely to survive without water. Lack of water kills you before lack of food does. How did you go from my "it's unlikely to survive without water" to "it's likely to survive without food".

Because I was making a general statement in regards to all of the people I quoted rather than just you? In any case, note that the people on the boat drank blood.

It's very likely that anyone caught in such a situation will die, thirst is a factor. Drinking the toxins that your body secretes through urea isn't advised. Not even if you gulp it down with hypertonic solution.

Yes, people have survived by this, it doesn't mean it's likely. It means it's possible, nothing else.

Again, the blood thing applies. Even if it didn't, they could evidently survive from their own urine (and/or seawater) for long enough for cannibalism to become an issue, because that is what happened.

I also mentioned a bunch of other possible dangers with cannibalism if you didn't notice. Seriously make some effort into reading my post because my "They're likely to die anyway" is the opposite of your interpretation of my post.

Really? Because reality suggests otherwise, of the three who weren't stabbed, all survived.

Also if you didn't notice this was a side note. I did answer what I would do if I was judging from the point of the actual draw. That was the beginning of my post. Go back, read the conclusion because I don't want give it away, I want this to be an opportunity for you to make an effort.

I read the post several times before I replied. There's absolutely no reason to be this condescending and rude. Maybe before you make such a post, you should really analyse if your in the right enough to act in this manner about it. And then, even if you are in the right, maybe analyse whether the poster was trying to be rude to you, before flying off the handle. Seriously, a little courtesy goes a long way.

 

[Yopaz]

Meh, ignore this post. Nothing useful was said in this discussion. Please ignore it.

 

[Arakasi]

that it is somewhat feasable to survive in the open water without food.

Not what I was saying. Not even close. I said it's unlikely to survive without water. Lack of water kills you before lack of food does. How did you go from my "it's unlikely to survive without water" to "it's likely to survive without food".

Because I was making a general statement in regards to all of the people I quoted rather than just you? In any case, note that the people on the boat drank blood.

Even if you were making a general statement I said the OPPOSITE. Nothing in the line of it being feasible. Why even quote someone who said it was ulikely just to make a general statement?

Okay, sorry I didn't put in 'thirst' instead of hunger. The point still applies that you were wrong, and the example showed why.

Also, do you know how the concentration of blood is compared to blood? Isotonic, meaning you won't gain any fluids, you won't lose any salt from drinking it.

I'd imagine blood to blood is a 1:1 comparison. I kid, I assume you meant water, but it clearly sustained them for long enough to not die, so your point is still moot.

Again, the blood thing applies. Even if it didn't, they could evidently survive from their own urine (and/or seawater) for long enough for cannibalism to become an issue, because that is what happened.

Bold out where I said it was impossible. Did I say it was impossible? Did you honestly see me saying it was impossible? No, I did not.

I never said you said it was impossible. You said it was unlikely, and I say, that since 3 (4 until cannibalism) people survived by doing it, that it was far from unlikely.

Really? Because reality suggests otherwise, of the three who weren't stabbed, all survived.

Really? I guess blood borne diseases doesn't exist then. I guess no-one has ever fallen ill after eating uncooked meat. Thank you for disproving modern medical science.

Again, not the point I was making.
The point is that eating the meat when you're starving to death takes presidence over possible illness. And I say possible, because none of them (that I can find) died from any disease caught from cannibalising the boy, at least not within the period of their collective trial for killing the boy.

I read the post several times before I replied. There's absolutely no reason to be this condescending and rude. Maybe before you make such a post, you should really analyse if your in the right enough to act in this manner about it. And then, even if you are in the right, maybe analyse whether the poster was trying to be rude to you, before flying off the handle. Seriously, a little courtesy goes a long way.

You argued with my post, ignoring everything I said, getting my point wrong, then asking me to consider the scenario which I had already made an answer to. You may claim you wrote a general response, but please in the future, do not bulk people who say "This is unlikely to go well" and those who say "This is likely to go well" because you can't use the same response to two contradicting statements and claim it's general. It's not.

You made a claim about the comparative risk between disease and starving to death:

Nor do I think it's safe to eat raw meat from a random person who may or may not carry a disease that could infect my entire crew.

Then you made a more definitive claim about dying from thirst

Finally unless we were starving before the ship sank we would die of thirst regardless of how much food we've got.

Both of which were refuted by the scenario I provided.

Now taking a lesson from you about ignoring things you don't like I'll ignore you in the future.

I sincerely hope you do. It has not been a pleasure arguing with someone who would use such antagonistic arguing tactics without provocation.

 

[DementedSheep]

I'm not going to let a man starve to death for no benefit to myself or others. Yeah it sucks that everyone else put their life on the line and he didn't and I'd be pretty angry at him but not enough to just let him die.

I probably wouldn't have let someone opt out in the first place if I was going to do that. It's an all in or all out situation.

 

[Phantom Kat]

I say let them starve. He chose not to resort to cannibalism when he opted out of the draw.

This, of course, ignores the fact that I wouldn't draw lots to decide who to eat and would instead make the decision to eat someone either after they had died or were incredibly close to death. There's also loads of other solutions that avoid cannibalism but they've almost certainly already been mentioned.

 

[TristanBelmont]

I actually can't vote because I don't know...
On one hand that's murder by neglect. On the other hand, He didn't put his life on the line to try and ensure the lives of his crew like everyone else did. Cripes, and Bioware thought they could rock a mean dilemma....

 

[Agayek]

I'd let him starve, honestly. He agreed to the stipulation that he would not need to risk himself and in exchange, he would not get to eat. That doesn't change after the deed is done.

It's basically the same premise as a group of guys stuck on a deserted island with no weapons and the only food source around are giant tiger-crocodile hybrids with the attitude of Tasmanian Devils. They need to eat, so they organize a hunt to take one down, but someone gets cold feet and insists that all the risk must be on the shoulders of others. Then when the hunt returns successfully, demands to be fed.

That's like 9 different flavors of bullshit, just like it is in the OP's scenario. If they weren't willing to risk their lives for the chance, they haven't earned the right to partake of the result.

Now, in a real world situation, I'd probably have trouble keeping to that - I'm not without sympathy and watching someone starve to death would be hard - but I'd like to think that if I were in a position of authority, that people were relying on me and my decisions to survive, that I'd stick to the most basic principle of cooperation; that all must contribute to benefit.

 

[JimB]

I find it interesting that so many people keep saying the starving man is asking for food, or expecting food, or demanding food. Nothing of the sort is said or even implied in the scenario as written. It only says that he is starving and you have an opportunity to feed him. He could be suffering silently in the corner for all we know, belly distended and flies crawling on his eyeballs but his lips still shut tight.

Not that I think it matters if he asks for food or not. He needs food to live; I have food I don't need and am in a position to give him. Nothing else matters, and if I'm being totally honest, I have to say I'm utterly appalled at how many people think adhering to rules made in an entirely different situation than the one everyone is currently in is the greater moral obligation than preserving the life of someone who presents no threat to you by giving him a resource that costs you nothing to offer up.

 

[Silvanus]

Let the man eat.

If the situation can end without anybody dying, and nobody wants to die, then anything else is murder.

This isn't a dilemma for me. Screw the rules of the draw. They became irrelevant the second shore was sighted.

 

[Schadrach]

A slight modification to the scenario, that might effect people's positions -- how does your perspective change if there's another drawing after this one?

 

[JimB]

A slight modification to the scenario that might affect people's positions: how does your perspective change if there's another drawing after this one?

It doesn't. As long as I am capable of preventing a death by giving up something that will cause me no harm to lose, I consider myself morally beholden to do so. The survivors are not in a better position if there is one more corpse on the ground, no matter how many corpses there already are.

 

[Schadrach]

A slight modification to the scenario that might affect people's positions: how does your perspective change if there's another drawing after this one?

It doesn't. As long as I am capable of preventing a death by giving up something that will cause me no harm to lose, I consider myself morally beholden to do so. The survivors are not in a better position if there is one more corpse on the ground, no matter how many corpses there already are.

Except that now it's been established that people who aren't in the drawing still get fed. Who is going to be willing to volunteer for the next drawing if they are going to eat regardless?

Assuming people will generally be expected to look out for their own well being:

If you feed him, then no one who isn't forced to will participate in the next drawing, because they eat either way.
If you don't feed him, you ultimately kill a man to enforce the rules, and prevent problems with the next draw.
If you feed him on condition that he joins the next raffle, then you merely delay his death slightly, because no one else will be in the next raffle so he will die by default.

 

[JimB]

A slight modification to the scenario that might affect people's positions: how does your perspective change if there's another drawing after this one?

It doesn't.

Except that now it's been established that people who aren't in the drawing still get fed.

Wait, so, you're saying the second drawing comes after shore has been sighted and it's already been determined the amount of food left is sufficient to reach shore with more to spare? Or are you altering more of the scenario presented than I understand?

 

[Rose and Thorn]

Well I'd starve before I ate a man, so I guess I would be the starving one in this sitaution. Not that I think what they are doing is morally wrong, survival is survival, it is just something I couldn't do. If I didn't enter the lottery, I wouldn't ask to be fed. Even if I was the cannibal captain in this scenario, I would let the man die, it wouldn't hurt my conscious. He had his chance.

I'd be much more inclined to use one of the passengers as bait to attract fish.

This is more along the lines of what I would be thinking about.

 

[Schadrach]

A slight modification to the scenario that might affect people's positions: how does your perspective change if there's another drawing after this one?

It doesn't.

Except that now it's been established that people who aren't in the drawing still get fed.

Wait, so, you're saying the second drawing comes after shore has been sighted and it's already been determined the amount of food left is sufficient to reach shore with more to spare? Or are you altering more of the scenario presented than I understand?

The specific alteration is that a second drawing for a second person to be eaten becomes necessary (the reason is up in the air, only that they have to go through it a second time -- whether that's because they poorly estimated how far away the shore was, or some other turn of fate keeps them out there is largely irrelevant, the situation between round 1 and round 2 is entirely unchanged except that come round 2 they've already committed cannibalism once and they are one person fewer in number). Sorry if it wasn't clear what I was proposing.

 

[Arakasi]

Well I'd starve before I ate a man, so I guess I would be the starving one in this sitaution. Not that I think what they are doing is morally wrong, survival is survival, it is just something I couldn't do.

I've thought this to some extent too, but then it is really hard to say what you'll do if the situation actually arose. I'd imagine quite a few people thought that way before they became cannibalised someone.

 

[JimB]

The specific alteration is that a second drawing for a second person to be eaten becomes necessary (the reason is up in the air, only that they have to go through it a second time--whether that's because they poorly estimated how far away the shore was, or some other turn of fate keeps them out there is largely irrelevant, the situation between round 1 and round 2 is entirely unchanged except that come round 2 they've already committed cannibalism once and they are one person fewer in number). Sorry if it wasn't clear what I was proposing.

Hm. Okay. So, are you asking if I'd feed the starving man a second time, or if I'd feed them the first time because I have prescient knowledge that even though I know someone will declare we'll have enough food for everyone by the time we reach shore, something will happen to make that be untrue?