Lifeboat Ethics: How life and death decisions are better than "Law of the Jungle"

Dutch Uncle

* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Lots of JPP political discussions involve strife and the loss of human life. Part of this discussion is "should our government only care about the lives of the citizenry" vs. "should our government remain the leader of the Free World and an international bastion of democracy"?

Another part is ethics: Should we choose to become involved, either domestically or abroad. While lots of involvement is simply funding AKA paying someone else to do the work, often it applies to the use of force. Decisions have to be made on how much force and when to use it.

While the Ukrainians under attack continue to be a major issue, many people are concerned about the plight of Gazans. They see the immediate need of people in suffering. Hence the discussion on when, where and how much the US government should become involved in the lives of citizens, foreign or domestic.

Decisions, decisions like lifeboat captain decisions. There are a few variations of the Lifeboat Dilemma, including the harsh one of the four sailors linked below, but the Titanic lifeboat captain scenario seems most common for people.

We, as caring, loving people have to decide on who we help and who we can't. Sure, some people are evil fucks who don't want to help anyone but themselves, most people do give a shit. They want to help, but there's a limit.

It's part of socialization and part of family love. Most Americans grow up loving their parents, their siblings and their friends. It comes naturally in a society of people who respect each other's rights. We want to help each other. Mostly, IMO, out of survival, but also out of socialization.

Now comes the question: Since you can't save every puppy and kitten on the planet, what is your Plan B?



The Lifeboat case describes an incident where four sailors were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic. They had run out of food, were starving, and decided to kill one sailor for the survival of the rest. The remaining three sailors were rescued and tried in the court of British law and argued that they did not commit murder out of premeditation. They stated that it was a necessary action for the survival of the group. This case provides an interesting ethical dilemma that must be examined in detail.





 
Last edited:
Lots of JPP political discussions involve strife and the loss of human life. Part of this discussion is "should our government only care about the lives of the citizenry" vs. "should our government remain the leader of the Free World and an international bastion of democracy"?

Another part is ethics: Should we choose to become involved, either domestically or abroad. While lots of involvement is simply funding AKA paying someone else to do the work, often it applies to the use of force. Decisions have to be made on how much force and when to use it.

While the Ukrainians under attack continue to be a major issue, many people are concerned about the plight of Gazans. They see the immediate need of people in suffering. Hence the discussion on when, where and how much the US government should become involved in the lives of citizens, foreign or domestic.

Decisions, decisions like lifeboat captain decisions. There are a few variations of the Lifeboat Dilemma, including the harsh one of the four sailors linked below, but the Titanic lifeboat captain scenario seems most common for people.

We, as caring, loving people have to decide on who we help and who we can't. Sure, some people are evil fucks who don't want to help anyone but themselves, most people do give a shit. They want to help, but there's a limit.

It's part of socialization and part of family love. Most Americans grow up loving their parents, their siblings and their friends. It comes naturally in a society of people who respect each other's rights. We want to help each other. Mostly, IMO, out of survival, but also out of socialization.

Now comes the question: Since you can't save every puppy and kitten on the planet, what is your Plan B?



The Lifeboat case describes an incident where four sailors were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic. They had run out of food, were starving, and decided to kill one sailor for the survival of the rest. The remaining three sailors were rescued and tried in the court of British law and argued that they did not commit murder out of premeditation. They stated that it was a necessary action for the survival of the group. This case provides an interesting ethical dilemma that must be examined in detail.






I think our nation's government has to prioritize cases of mass starvation, genocide, mass civilian casualties in war or natural disasters, instead of trying to alleviate every individual on the planet who is suffering.
 
I think our nation's government has to prioritize cases of mass starvation, genocide, mass civilian casualties in war or natural disasters, instead of trying to alleviate every individual on the planet who is suffering.
Pre-Trump, we did. That's what USAID did.

OTOH, the Democrats weren't lily-pure here. In the 90s they took a chainsaw to the US military and then turned it into a peacekeeping force in Haiti and the Balkans. Something for which they are not trained.
 
Pre-Trump, we did. That's what USAID did.

OTOH, the Democrats weren't lily-pure here. In the 90s they took a chainsaw to the US military and then turned it into a peacekeeping force in Haiti and the Balkans. Something for which they are not trained.
After the US intervened, I think the Balkans were one of the great humanitarian success stories of the late 20th century, and we owe that success in large part to the US military.

I don't know enough about Haiti to comment.
 
After the US intervened, I think the Balkans were one of the great humanitarian success stories of the late 20th century, and we owe that success in large part to the US military.

I don't know enough about Haiti to comment.
The Balkans was an international effort, but the US was still the Leader of the Free World then and took the initiative to stop the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The Haiti operation was an example of nation building.



Back in the U.S., the Congressional Black Caucus had been pushing President Bill Clinton to intervene, but he was wary of doing so. Less than a year earlier, in October 1993, 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in the Black Hawk Down battle in Somalia during a peacekeeping mission, and humanitarian crises were also ongoing in Bosnia and Rwanda. But in light of the atrocities, Clinton in 1994 decided that the time had come. During the President’s Radio Address on Sept. 17, 1994, he spoke of America’s interest in helping to “restore democratic government in Haiti.” Attempts to make change via diplomacy had failed. “The dictators rejected all of our efforts, and their reign of terror, a campaign of murder, rape, and mutilation, gets worse with every passing day,” he said. “Now we must act.”
 
Lots of JPP political discussions involve strife and the loss of human life. Part of this discussion is "should our government only care about the lives of the citizenry" vs. "should our government remain the leader of the Free World and an international bastion of democracy"?

Another part is ethics: Should we choose to become involved, either domestically or abroad. While lots of involvement is simply funding AKA paying someone else to do the work, often it applies to the use of force. Decisions have to be made on how much force and when to use it.

While the Ukrainians under attack continue to be a major issue, many people are concerned about the plight of Gazans. They see the immediate need of people in suffering. Hence the discussion on when, where and how much the US government should become involved in the lives of citizens, foreign or domestic.

Decisions, decisions like lifeboat captain decisions. There are a few variations of the Lifeboat Dilemma, including the harsh one of the four sailors linked below, but the Titanic lifeboat captain scenario seems most common for people.

We, as caring, loving people have to decide on who we help and who we can't. Sure, some people are evil fucks who don't want to help anyone but themselves, most people do give a shit. They want to help, but there's a limit.

It's part of socialization and part of family love. Most Americans grow up loving their parents, their siblings and their friends. It comes naturally in a society of people who respect each other's rights. We want to help each other. Mostly, IMO, out of survival, but also out of socialization.

Now comes the question: Since you can't save every puppy and kitten on the planet, what is your Plan B?



The Lifeboat case describes an incident where four sailors were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic. They had run out of food, were starving, and decided to kill one sailor for the survival of the rest. The remaining three sailors were rescued and tried in the court of British law and argued that they did not commit murder out of premeditation. They stated that it was a necessary action for the survival of the group. This case provides an interesting ethical dilemma that must be examined in detail.





except you fucks create calamities and then pretend every decision is a lifeboat decision.

so go fuck yourself deep state larper fascist fuckstick.
 
Lots of JPP political discussions involve strife and the loss of human life. Part of this discussion is "should our government only care about the lives of the citizenry" vs. "should our government remain the leader of the Free World and an international bastion of democracy"?

Another part is ethics: Should we choose to become involved, either domestically or abroad. While lots of involvement is simply funding AKA paying someone else to do the work, often it applies to the use of force. Decisions have to be made on how much force and when to use it.

While the Ukrainians under attack continue to be a major issue, many people are concerned about the plight of Gazans. They see the immediate need of people in suffering. Hence the discussion on when, where and how much the US government should become involved in the lives of citizens, foreign or domestic.
What is the free world free from? Intellectual minds governing artificial ideas about space/time continuum or ancestral brains navigating space in real time simply adapting in space eternally separated surviving into each next heartbeat forward now?

Tyranny supplied by societal evolution promising artificial tomorrows 7 days a week cradle to grave each 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds a rotation is completed on the equator to both polar axis of a spherical planet rotating 365.2422 days a revolution around the specific star universally here.

Funny thing about perpetual motion, it has a perpetual balancing set of results as a universal standard of inhabiting space one at a time since ancestrally positioned in recorded history, now.

Journalism converts evolving into context of what people socially have done each ancestrally lived per generation gap alive so far. Evolving is a process separating current chromosomes streaming DNA genetic positions living in plain sight.

What is the purpose of institutional ideas promising every great great grandchild generation about 7 artificial tomorrows 52 weeks a year? Life never duplicated a reproduction twice as added so far.

Even cloning doesn't duplicate the previous replacements just new additions to performing the same ideas over and over expecting different outcomes next heart beat.
 
Back
Top