In Which the Ethics of the Lifeboat Exercise Is Trash
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrissa has a really lovely essay about lifeboats over at Uncanny, and you should read it. Beware the Lifeboat - Uncanny Magazinehttps://uncannymagazine.com/article/beware-the-lifeboat/Seventh grade was when I was first exposed to the lifeboat thought experiment. Thirteen of us were assigned roles, and told to decide who to toss out, because the lifeboat could only hold twelve. I do not remember what role I was assigned, but I do remember being completely unable to find a reason not to toss out the disabled twelve year old girl, which is what we eventually did. I didn't find it all that traumatic, but it nagged at me afterwards.
I think it must have actually bothered me a great deal more than I recognized at the time, because when I found out that the parameters of the lifeboat problem were a cheat, I felt furious and betrayed. In real lifeboats, the parameters are not clean and hard. A boat that is rated for ten can usually carry more, maybe many more, depending on the people. The water is only a limiting factor if it doesn't rain, and there's no knowing if it will. Food, too, is not a limiting factor in the way it was represented to me. Over and above rationing, the waste from a lifeboat draws fish and birds, and lots of cast aways have used this to supplement the food on the boat. Finally, rescue is neither certain nor predictable. You do not know if there will ever be a rescue, nor do you know when it will be. It could be in an hour, or a day, or never. Everything about the problem was a cheat. In looking at that, and the trolley problem, and the other thought experiments in this genre, my conclusion is that, whatever the intent, the effect of having people engage with the problem is not an exercise in getting them to examine their underlying ethical structures, but rather a way to force people to act unethically. I think it desensitizes and damages our understanding of ourselves and our world, rather than exposing or exploring anything.
I do not know if this would be more informative or ethical, but I'd like to see some psychology department try this. Set up the scenario the same way it was presented to me in seventh grade. Give people roles, tell them to decide who to sacrifice. Have them play it out. When the finally decide who goes over the side, have the proctor describe the death in some reasonable amount of detail. The goal here is not to traumatize, but to give everyone a chance to have second thoughts. See if anyone jumps in to save the drowning person, and how the rest react. Then have the proctor say, "As you stare at the surface of the ocean, at the space where the drowning person last rose, you hear a voice from a megaphone telling you to remain still, the ship will be there to rescue you. After you are taken on board, cleaned and cared for, and asked how you are, and what you did while you waited for rescue." Then, have the proctor ask each participant to re-visit their choice of sacrificing one of their own. Ask them why they did it, if they would change their mind. Guide them to seeing all the questions and possibilities they didn't consider when they decided on the sacrifice.
Would this be a better framework for getting people to examine their underlying ethical structures, or is this just me still being angry 40 years later? I am not sure. But it would certainly be more interesting than what they put me through when I was 13, I tell you what.
no subject
Honestly, the question of blame is just...the guy committed a goddamn murder. I'm happy to stop there. You don't get to kill people. Full stop. As for any of the other mitigating circumstances, we are not given any information, so how can we possibly assess blame?