The Lifeboat HypotheticalMike Rappaport
Having recommended Rasmusen’s hypothetical, which ia similar to the famous Speluncean Explorers hypothetical by Lon Fuller, let me give some of my answers. Rasmusen’s hypothetical is in italics; my answer is in ordinary type.
A lifeboat will hold 5 people without sinking in the next storm (aninevitable one), but 6 are in it. All will die unless one is thrownout.
1. Should law and morals allow one person to voluntarily and unilaterally jump overboard and die?
Yes. The main issue here is whether this rule would allow the others to lie and say he did. But, of course, they could lie about any rule, so it is not really a strong objection.
2. Should they be allowed to agree unanimously to draw strawsand use a gun to kill one person? (kill, because after he finds he hasthe short straw he changes his mind).
Yes. This is a fair procedure, especially if agreed to unanimously. Once the procedure has been conducted, they can enforce it.
3. Suppose we know they would all have agreed, but they don tactually have the discussion. Instead, one of them, a very honestperson, draws a straw for each of them. If he had the short straw, hewould have killed himself, but he is lucky and Sam has the short straw.He then shoots Sam with the gun and they thrown Sam overboard. Is thatOK?
My answer here resists the hypothetical. I don’t buy that we can know that they all would have agreed. And I don’t think someone can simply pick the straws without the others being involved. The risks of dishonesty are too great and the others will be suspicious and surprised.
My answer does not here turn on fair procedural justice or the right to participate. Those can be overridden in the right circumstances. But there is no good reason given for not following the procedures in number 2 and so they should be required.
4. Suppose they have a discussion, and they and we know thateveryone *would* agree to the scheme if it was a choice between all 6drawing straws and all of them dying. Sam, however, says: I won tagree. I know that even if I hold out, the other 5 of you will do a5-straw scheme and one of you will go overboard and the rest of us willbe saved. So I m opting out. Is it OK to include him in the strawscheme anyway, against his will?
Now, it starts to get a little harder. I have problems with examples where “we know that everyone would agree,” since we seldom have that knowledge. But suppose that Sam admits he would have agreed, but says he won’t, so he can free ride. I think that they can include him in the group — on the same terms as them — and then kill him if he is selected. But, before they do this, they should ask him what his objections are. (If he argues that there is something unfair in the procedure or proposes another one, then they should discuss and attempt to resolve that issue.)
5. Suppose that they have a discussion and Sam sincerely sayshe is opting out because even if his opting out would sink the boat, hedoesn t want to have any chance of being thrown overboard now insteadof dying in 30 minutes when the storm hits. And in fact if he doesn tagree, the resulting bickering will prevent even a 5-straw scheme. Isit OK to include him in the straw scheme anyway, against his will?
This is obviously the hardest one for my position. The way the hypothetical is set up, one does not even have the choice of leaving him out and using a 5-straw scheme. In that situation, I would give the same answer as I did in number 4. Yes, they can put his name in the straw scheme against his will. Otherwise, everyone will die.
The harder question is whether they can force him to paricipate in the scheme assuming that they have the chance to run the scheme without his participation. The issue here is whether he is free riding. His position seems unreasonable — the 30 minutes seems trivial — and therefore one might question whether he is being sincere or strategic. If he is being strategic, then he is free riding on the others and probably should be forced to participate. If he is sincere, then I find it harder to conclude that they can force him to participate.
One last point: I noticed, after writing this post, that the commentors to Rasmusen’s post have quite a different view of the matter, with one arguing that all utilitarian reasoning is immoral. I am a utilitarian, although of a certain sort. None of these commentors takes seriously that their position results in the death of 5 people who otherwise could have been saved.