Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lifeboat ethics"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Is conservapedia advocating suicide?)
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
Seems like a terrible idea.  --[[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 
Seems like a terrible idea.  --[[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:I think you have self sacrifice confused with suicide. There's a difference between sacrificing your own life to save the life of others (though a very small percentage of non-lifeboaters actually lived) and killing yourself for selfish reasons. Jesus could have gotten out of crucifiction but he did not -- I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a sin in doing so. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 14:28, 9 December 2007

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)
Regarding your Titanic claim and RossC's claim not being true:
Mrs. Beane, interviewed shortly after the sinking, said she had seen members of the Titanic's crew holding men back at gunpoint from the lifeboat stations after the order was given for only women and children to board the boats. According to the interview, she said she had seen one man shot.
(Source: Found here but can also be found here.) --Jenkins 09:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship. In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--Aschlafly 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
Andy: "that isn't true about the Titanic, as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --Jenkins 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I fear that this is getting off-topic in relation to the article, but...Titanic had a lifeboat capacity of about 1200. Only about 700 were rescued, meaning about 500 seats were empty. Many of the lifeboats went partly empty because of confusion and disbelief (early on, many thought it was only a drill), fear that boat capacity was overstated, and problems during launch (two were swamped upon launch, and floated off empty). Now, once the boats were away and people were in the water, there was discussion/argument in the part-empty boats about going back and taking on more passengers, but only one boat (#14) did; the rest feared that--yes--they'd be swamped by desperate people trying to get into the lifeboat. Now, regarding women/children, there was theoretically space enough in the lifeboats for all women and children (even as empty as they were), but about 30 percent of women and children passengers died, their theoretical spots in the lifeboats taken by men and crew (who should have been the last to go).
But enough of that. Instead a practical suggestion: How about an example of (or a link to) the lifeboat dilemma problem, so that readers can better understand how it varies from reality, and how it pushes situational ethics, etc.--RossC 12:05, 9 December 2007 (EST)
The point is this: even on the Titanic, the rarest event imaginable, there were plenty of lifeboat spaces after the volunteers gave up their spots. This underscores how the lifeboat problem is much a fantasy as a UFO invasion would be.--Aschlafly 13:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Is conservapedia advocating suicide?

Schlafly - your 4th "logical fallacy" concerning the lifeboat scenario presents you with a significant challenge. You claim that the scenario would never happen, because people will be willing to not go into the lifeboat. These individuals would be engaging in suicide, which is a sin. Do you really want to tell young children that view this site that they don't have to worry about difficult ethical decisions, because they can wait for people to kill themselves?

Seems like a terrible idea. --SacchoPavta 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I think you have self sacrifice confused with suicide. There's a difference between sacrificing your own life to save the life of others (though a very small percentage of non-lifeboaters actually lived) and killing yourself for selfish reasons. Jesus could have gotten out of crucifiction but he did not -- I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a sin in doing so. HelpJazz 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)