Poll: A Tricky Moral Dilemma

[Schadrach]

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?

You either know there will be (or are pessimistic enough to consider the likelihood that there will be, since you also can't be prescient enough to know you'll necessarily make it before round two needs to happen) at least two rounds. Does that impact your choice on what to do with the man who opted out in round 1?

Basically, if this is a situation that has to iterate, does it change your choice? As a secondary question, does your position change as the number of iterations increases? As a third, what if who "opts out" changes between iterations vs being the same one each time?

 

[JimB]

You either know there will be (or are pessimistic enough to consider the likelihood that there will be, since you also can't be prescient enough to know you'll necessarily make it before round two needs to happen) at least two rounds. Does that impact your choice on what to do with the man who opted out in round 1?

Nope. I will condemn a man to die if that's what it takes for me to live, but I won't do it just for fear it might be what it takes for me to live.

 

[Weaver]

If it's obvious we're going to reach safety with plenty of food to spare, then sure, he can eat. Why would I care?

 

[Avistew]

The man opted out, meaning he wasn't going to get killed to feed the rest. But that also meant that if whoever drew was not big enough to feed everyone, the guy who opted out would have been the one to starve. Because he opted out, there was more food for everyone else, whether it was his intent or not.

Turns out there is enough food for him. Refusing to give it to him when he's starving is immoral, regardless of what happened beforehand. Just because he did not want to be involved with the whole "killing someone and eating them" part does not mean he deserves to die. Hell, take a different situation, in which there is no draw involved and the starving man is a murderer, and everyone else has more than enough food, and the murderer is starving, wouldn't everyone (or almost everyone) feed the guy?

I mean what's the alternative, letting the food go to waste while someone is starving? You have the choice between two people dying or only one, and at this point his living is not going to lower anyone else's chances for survival. Feed him.

 

[Jux]

What else would one suggest?

Waiting for someone to kick the bucket naturally before chowing down seems like an acceptable method too. I'll go with @thaluikhain and @JimB with this one.

Withholding food from a starving man because you need it is morally justified. Withholding food you don't need out of some bizarre, blind adherence to a contract written in a scenario that no longer applies is not. One man has already died for this; the death of another does not improve anyone's situation.

 

[Arakasi]

What else would one suggest?

Waiting for someone to kick the bucket naturally before chowing down seems like an acceptable method too. I'll go with @thaluikhain and @JimB with this one.

Withholding food from a starving man because you need it is morally justified. Withholding food you don't need out of some bizarre, blind adherence to a contract written in a scenario that no longer applies is not. One man has already died for this; the death of another does not improve anyone's situation.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's generally an option. By then you might be too far-gone or something, but it tends to not be the way things work out, see the real life inspiration for this dilemma posted on page 3.

As for the dilemma itself, I still like the solution of giving him the option to eat only if he gets cannibalised next should things go south.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Once the deed is done it is done. Just feed the dude.

 

[Callate]

I think I'd have to feed him, with regrets.

You have temporarily become part of a society in which death and cannibalism are a necessity, and risk of death as a requirement to feed is part of that society.

But that society isn't going to endure. You're about to rejoin a society that doesn't have that rigid and survivalist code. You don't need to make an example of the man for breaking the rules of a society that is about to cease to exist. You don't need to enforce that code so he'll learn a lesson, or others will recognize consequences by example. Letting him die isn't going to bring the man who died back, or make his sacrifice more meaningful; arguably, the opposite is true.

If you're 100% certain of reaching safety, I think feeding the man is the right choice.

But he has to eat the giblets.

 

[BuddyLeaf]

I'd ask him if he likes fish sticks

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

Feed the man. Save the life of one man without any real risk of undermining a important general rule. Any rule based on fairness would not be undermined by this since the situation is so extreme that it's outcome would not be generalized to other situations.

Also, if you starve the man to death you are almost guaranteeing all the other people survivor's guilt on top of the high risk of PTSD making suicide or permanent mental disability all the more likely.

Just think to yourself. When you reach shore having allowed the man to live, could you imagine feeling guilty overt your choose? Is there any chance that you would after the fact wish you had let a more-or-less innocent person die for the sake of fairness?

 

[Mobax]

Well, 2 things come to mind. First why did the single man chose not to enter the draw? Was it to avoid the small chance of death? Or avoid the much higher chance of being given human flesh to eat? It is statistically more likely he was opposed to the idea of cannibalism on a moral ground, and opinion anyone is entirely within their right to make.

Second, since there is an obvious surplus of meat, it would be inhumane and cruel to deny a hungry man food. Especially since it'll go to waste otherwise, the fact he chose not to enter the lottery at this point is irrelevant. However based on the presumption above as to the man's likely aversion to cannibalism itself, it seems unlikely that the man would recant his feelings and ask for some meat. And it would be just as inhumane to force a man to eat human flesh when he is morally opposed to the idea.

Therefore under the described scenario, as Captain I would offer the starving man some meat, no strings attached. And if he still refused that is his choice.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Kill everyone and eat them.

What? I am Evil Smurf, not let's do the right thing Smurf.

it would be stupid to assume that I can use the satellite phone to contact help right?

 

[the December King]

I dunno... The notions that this man can opt out and then survive, to me, means that everyone should be able to opt out to survive, which is silly and an entitlement that no one in the raft should be privy to. The notion of treating another humanely went out the window as soon as straws were used to randomly determine who was going to die for the direct benefit of all parties. Either we're all in, or we don't do it, but that man's sacrifice will not be a cruel joke just because someone said 'no, I don't want to take the risk' and then said 'I want the reward anyways'.

I would like the man with the short straw to also decide how he dies, if he needs help, or can do it himself... but man, that is a hard scene...

In my opinion we're all going to have survivors guilt from this, along with possible other issues after the fact. We're eating a fellow person to survive.

What a cool question! I like pondering these.

 

[kickyourass]

If it's a near certainty that we WILL get to land soon, I'd probably let him eat, but only the barest minimum that he would require to survive until we got there. Everyone agreed upon this, him included, I'm not spiteful enough to just let him die if letting him eat wouldn't put the rest of us in danger of running out before land, but the thinner the certainty of our finding land or being found, the thinner my inclination to let the man eat.

Edit

I dunno... The notions that this man can opt out and then survive, to me, means that everyone should be able to opt out to survive, which is silly and an entitlement that no one in the raft should be privy to. The notion of treating another humanely went out the window as soon as straws were used to randomly determine who was going to die for the direct benefit of all parties. Either we're all in, or we don't do it, but that man's sacrifice will not be a cruel joke just because someone said 'no, I don't want to take the risk' and then said 'I want the reward anyways'.

I would like the man with the short straw to also decide how he dies, if he needs help, or can do it himself... but man, that is a hard scene...

In my opinion we're all going to have survivors guilt from this, along with possible other issues after the fact. We're eating a fellow person to survive.

What a cool question! I like pondering these.

Wow I really wish I'd seen this before I posted because it's kinda giving me second thoughts on it.

 

[Popbangwoo]

The man opted out, which is cowardly. But being cowardly does not mean that indirect murder is morally justifiable.
If there is spare food then he should be able to eat.