• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moral question

Should one of the men be forsaken?

  • forsake the last guy

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • do not forsake the last guy

    Votes: 9 52.9%

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
The bottom option to not forsake the "last guy" (throw his ass off the raft). Teamwork would fall under no one being forsaken right off the bat and taking the chance that something good, a boon of sorts, would come soon.

Under the scenario presented, North Atlantic, 1 in for 10, out for 20, someone dies from hypothermia as damage accumulates. Fact. No recovers in time freebee the next cold chill 10 minute dip. Check the stats on NA cold weather in the seas.
It is a slow form of suicide.
We all die or one dies.
 
Last edited:
If I am not on the boat, then there is no way I would decide...they can decide for themselves.

And if I am on the boat, there are ALWAYS alternatives (I don't care if the scenario says there is or is not - kobayashi maru).

Is one or more of them married? Does one or more have children? How old are they? Does any of them have ANY physical conditions or limitations? What are each of their ages? And on and on...too many unknown variables possible to decide without more info.
 
Presence of the 3rd likely overrides any decision making, as the other two will start fighting or conspire to throw you overboard if you do nothing. If you do survive, in the US you'll probably be charged with murder too, turning your moral question into a legal one.

I recall a case where there were two guys sailing amidst a huge storm, and there was one life preserver left. The guy who grabbed it upon returning to land was arrested and charged with murder...however the other guy managed to survive and was later rescued. By the time he returned, the 1st was in jail awaiting trial. So even without a body or any evidence of a struggle, and despite having no alternative, that is how our legal system works

The real moral question for me is whether you steer the raft for peru instead
 
Last edited:
There was a case of this long ago. A sailing ship sunk. Not enough room in the lifeboat. The Captain put some out claiming this necessary to save some. He was convicted of murder, but given a nominal sentence.
 
Given the exact specifics? Draw lots and the 2 who win put the loser out IF the sinking was imminent. If not, that decision not made until it is.
 
So is the right to life of two men greater than the right to life of one? Does life then have a value?
What kind of math do they teach in your school?

For how the question is presented, the final moral question is are two lives worth more than none.
 
There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

EDIT

There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
Oh the solution is very easy:

 
Either one man dies, or three men die. The choice is pretty obvious, one has to go overboard.

There's really no good choice in this sort of situation, just a lesser of two evils, and the lesser evil is to save as many people as you can, since saving all of them isn't an option.

Edit: I'll note that letting one of them drown would be my last choice. I'd search for other solutions first, like letting each of the three take turns in the water, throwing other gear overboard, etc.
 
There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

EDIT

There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.

It would be virtuous for one to get off and thereby save the others. But it would be wrong (and punishable by long periods of incarceration) to push one off involuntarily.
 
P.S. You are not part of this, rather, picture yourself as one who pulls the "strings" of the three men. Remember they are all of the same caliber.

Picture myself as God? Well then I'd do whatever my infinite wisdom suggested.
 
At the end of the day, someone is going overboard. You can draw straws, play rock paper scissors, king of the raft, whatever, but two men live, one man dies. Mankind survives. These questions arent as difficult in real life as people want them to be. The 'noble' thought of all three dying together is just plain stupid.

But in order to survive you have to kill someone in cold blood, if you dont think the choice between living and murdering an innocent person is a difficult choice you are a horrible person
 
But in order to survive you have to kill someone in cold blood, if you dont think the choice between living and murdering an innocent person is a difficult choice you are a horrible person

Im a realist. It will be a difficult choice. It will happen. That all Im saying. The fact that you want to rush to the "you are a horrible person!" part means your ass is probably the one going overboard.
 
Im a realist. It will be a difficult choice. It will happen. That all Im saying. The fact that you want to rush to the "you are a horrible person!" part means your ass is probably the one going overboard.

Except you just claimed it wasnt a difficult choice, notice I didnt say that you were a horrible person only that a person who thinks that the choice between dying and murder is easy is a horrible person thats not an opinion thats a fact.
 
Except you just claimed it wasnt a difficult choice, notice I didnt say that you were a horrible person only that a person who thinks that the choice between dying and murder is easy is a horrible person thats not an opinion thats a fact.
Where did I say it wouldnt be a difficult CHOICE? I said the morals QUESTION is not as difficult as people want to make it be. Do you need help with the distinction?
 
Where did I say it wouldnt be a difficult CHOICE? I said the morals QUESTION is not as difficult as people want to make it be. Do you need help with the distinction?

the choice is the morals question, a distinction without a difference
 
the choice is the morals question, a distinction without a difference
You are fooling yourself if you think this would be a dilemma. The decision would be made. The speed at which the decision would be made on who would die would be in direct proportion to how rapid the raft was sinking. If there was time for nobility, someone would probably make a noble choice. If there wasnt time....someone would make the choice for the three. The others may or may not resist. Either way...done.
 
Just a quick reminder for everyone.

What happens later is unknown. The reason you're given the option to not forsake any is because of the possibility that something good may happen and all may be saved. This is not an easy mathematical problem of "2 is better than none."

In fact, strict math like that means little. The big idea is: do you gamble to save all or go for a safer route and sacrifice one?

There is a little more to this question than simple math. My bad for not clarifying that.
 
At the end of the day, someone is going overboard. You can draw straws, play rock paper scissors, king of the raft, whatever, but two men live, one man dies. Mankind survives. These questions arent as difficult in real life as people want them to be. The 'noble' thought of all three dying together is just plain stupid.

Fail, refer to the above post. This is a question that takes into account mainly whether it's better to gamble for a possible great future or make a safe (throw someone's ass off) bet for a good future.
 
There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

EDIT

There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.

The real question is what does life mean to you? Existence is surely the main part of it, but is it truly the most important part and if so, then why do people sacrifice themselves for others? Maybe love has some impact?
 
Being God, I would place an island where they would run into it soon (before they got all murderous).

Since I would know what was in their hearts, as well as their minds, they better not get to murderous thinking any time too soon. Obviously, two would be thinking murder. One would not. That one would find a sharp box cutter in his front pocket when he was bobbing in the cold ocean water. Swim under the raft and suddenly it wouldn't support anyone.
 
I would forsake the man if that man was I. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13 (KJV). If my Savior laid down His life for me while I was yet His enemy, how can I do less for two strangers I meet on a sinking raft.
 
Back
Top Bottom