"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat."
http://www.penttilinkola.com/
2007-12-09 15:17:51 · 10 answers · asked by Mark R 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Violence may be the only possible option
2007-12-10 02:57:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many factors that could influence your decision. For example if you are on a lifeboat with a loved one you may want to survive so you can ensure your loved ones safety and survival. If you are alone then the most honorable thing to do would be to give your spot to someone else. Of course this is easier said than done, but that's what I hope I would have the strength to do.
2007-12-10 08:36:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To sever the hands that cling is painful and cruel. If you value life you wouldn't want the end of the victims' lives to be that painful. Find a different way to get them off the boat, or kill them rather than making them suffer by bleeding out from their wrists.
Also, you don't HATE life if you are making stupid decisions by filling the boat with too many people. You are passionate, but illogical in times of crisis. Hate is too strong of a word.
2007-12-09 23:27:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, sometimes.
If Gandhi had preached passive resistance to the world in WWII and everyone listened but the Axis powers, then they would have perhaps completed their plans for genocide. If a person believes that those innocent people who were murdered went to heaven, or taught the world some kind of lesson by their Christlike example, that's one thing. But to us living, moral souls, violent intervention was the only choice to make. Allowing the genocide would have been more immoral than killing those who would've perpetrated it. And killing them was the one and only way to stop them, because they were fanatics who were not going to change their minds or their practises until it was too late.
2007-12-10 00:25:44 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a tough call, I don't have an answer.
But I would give up my place for someone else. It would help the situation but I doubt that it would be the answer to everyone at the lifeboat.
2007-12-09 23:40:44 · answer #5 · answered by the old dog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In any case, the captain's going to have some serious explaining to do as to why there was only one lifeboat on his ship.
2007-12-09 23:34:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.
"An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men's primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).
"By "normal" conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish..." [The Ethics of Emergencies - Ayn Rand]
We do not conduct our lives in the state of perpetual emergency, but, if faced with an immediate choice to survive or die, violence may be necessary.
There are other circumstances in which violence would be morally sanctioned; in self defense from a mugger, rapist, thug etc - or in the defense of others - but under 'normal' circumstances there is no reason to initiate force.
2007-12-10 05:53:48 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Wizard 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. violence is not an option. Human nature is survival.
2007-12-09 23:47:16 · answer #8 · answered by scott p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Hatred comes from the heart;contempt from the head; and neither feeling is quite within our control."
>Arthur Schopenhauer
German Philosopher (1788-1860)
2007-12-09 23:40:03 · answer #9 · answered by Becky B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never say never but that is a contrived example. Avoid violence as best you can.
2007-12-09 23:23:07 · answer #10 · answered by hfrankmann 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋