Talk:Lifeboat ethics

You know, I detest this scenario, too (I always said, "Pick the meatiest ones, in case we run out of food"), but your "fallacies" are misplaced. With the possible exception of the first one, the others are often a fact in sea disasters--boat sinks, more swimmers than boats, problems ensue, lifeboats get swamped, more people drown. In the real world, of course, there wouldn't be picking and choosing going on--it'd be a first-come, first-serve sort of operation. Using the Titanic as an example is particularly misguided--much of the death toll can be attributed to a lack of lifeboat space, and (contrary to your scenario) there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board.--RossC 20:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, you've got to do better than this. As a lawyer, you know better than to refute a hypothetical scenario with the argument "this will never happen." Remember torts class? You were given a grade over nonsense that would never happen. Deal with the argument on the merits, and quit being retarded. --JamaicanJah 20:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to RossC, that isn't true about the Titanic, as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats, and the rescue came quicker than some probably expected. The content page also identifies other flaws in the problem.

JamaicanJah, in torts class the hypotheticals should illustrate real controversies, not pure fantasy. There is no end to the absurdities if unrealistic problems are presented. Suppose a UFO landed and demanded a parent to give up one of her children? Which would it be? The proper answer is, "that's silly."

The root of the lifeboat dilemma is a lack of faith, as the Biblical account illustrates.--Aschlafly 09:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)