Assignment#1

The ‘Lifeboat’ Dilemma

Team Members:

1) Faraz Nazir (213780) – Team Lead

2) Huzaifah Tariq (210430)
3) Hassan Mahmood Khan (218839)
4) Abdur Rehman Amjad Virk (220471)
5) Abdul Haseeb (227879)

Class: BEE-9A
Date: 22-04-21
Ethical dilemmas are situations where no matter what decisions we take, they might be objected
by one school of thought and considered immoral by another. Confronted by such sticky
situations, making a certain decision can be extremely hard but also equally crucial. In order to
converge on a decision, one must rely on his or her knowledge and life experiences, use common
sense and even in some cases deny it as well to gain insight into the situation. There is no
denying that ethics plays a vital role in these cases but social, religious and environmental
background all have much to say in this regard as well. In the decision-making process, an
individual’s emotions, beliefs and faith are factors whose contributions cannot be taken lightly.
Moreover, people also use their imaginations by placing themselves in other people’s shoes and
acting accordingly.

Now, while making such decisions, people follow certain approaches which help in giving the
best possible verdicts considering the situation:

 Utilitarian Approach: This approach suggests that when choosing between two ethical
actions, we should choose the one which is the most beneficial and the least harmful.
 Rights Approach: We make decisions in light of individuals and their rights instead of
their benefits.
 Common Good Approach: While making decision, we should choose the one which is
the most beneficial to the community as a whole.
 Virtue Approach: This approach analyzes our desirable qualities and says we should
act to obtain our highest potential.

While selecting the six people who would be saved, we were faced with conflicting views
because every person had their own perceptions. These decisions are hard to make because we
are deciding the fate of individuals with very limited knowledge regarding their past life and
other factors. For us to decide, we had to look at each person individually and analyze their
worth and the ways they can contribute to humanity and society. Finally, we went with a purely
utilitarian vision by deciding that people who will contribute the most are to be saved. We
reached a consensus on most of the people but faced some disagreements over a couple of
individuals.

Group Verdict:
Woman who is six weeks pregnant. (Saved)

Lifeguard. (Left)

Two young adults who recently married. (Left)

Senior citizen who has fifteen grandchildren. (Left)

Prominent professor at University. (Saved)

Thirteen-year-old twins. (Saved)

Veteran surgeon. (Saved)

Captain of the ship. (Saved)

Huzaifah Tariq (Senior Citizen and Lifeguard)

Considering we had unanimously decided to make our decisions based on an individual’s

utility, so although tragic and unfortunate, leaving out the senior citizen was perhaps the easiest
decision I had to make. This felt justified because from the knowledge and experience one has of
typical older people, I assumed this was just another ordinary citizen with declining health.
Moreover, even if saved he/she would require constant assistance which does not bode well in a
survival like situation. Here some might argue that he/she might still be able to contribute to the
society which we had set as a benchmark for selecting individuals. This might actually turn out
to be true but I would go with the probability here. A young person has more chance and time to
make an impact whereas the senior citizen would not be able to fully utilize his skills due to old
age and declining strength.

Another valid argument is that this particular individual has had his chance at life and
most probably accomplished majority of what he wanted to achieve and now another person
should be given an opportunity to fulfill his/her dreams and wishes. In financial terms, this seems
like a sound decision because most probably considering the individual’s age, he/she might be
suffering from some sort of disease which would require constant attention and thus costing
money as well. The law of probability suggests that he/she would most likely turn out to be a
liability without providing much benefit.
 Moving on the more controversial decision regarding leaving the lifeguard. Any sane
mind would certainly point out that his skills as a life saver in emergency situations would be
quite handful considering the circumstances. This was the most difficult decision for us to take as
well but we had decided to focus on every individual’s capabilities and utilities. A lifeguard is
meant to save everyone in emergency situations which ironically is just the case right now.
People need saving and instead of being the savior, he is the one expecting to be saved. I know
this sounds extremely cruel and unjust. No one should be expected to be the hero. But the
situation is dire and demands extreme measures to be taken. Based on this, I decided that he/she
is just not competent enough to be included among the people on the lifeboat.

Even if the lifeguard is skilled enough to be saved, then I am sure he/she can find a way
to survive until help arrives. Another perspective can be that the primary objective of a lifeguard
is to save people’s lives which he/she will be performing ultimately by sacrificing his/her own. It
would be a noble end for him and his selfless act would allow others to survive and prosper.
Although this decision is not doing much good but hopefully this would not turn out to be
detrimental for the society as well.

Hassan Mahmood Khan (Thirteen-year-old twins)

Given the authority, as captain, I would board the twins on the lifeboat, out of the ten ill-
fated individuals, stranded in rough waters. No matter how one looks at it, saving the twins is the
most logically, morally, and ethically correct option.

Let us first look at it from the perspective of an individual’s utility or simply his
usefulness to the society as a whole. In comparison to the rest of the group, these teenagers have
a good portion of their life ahead of them, assuming they do reach the global life expectancy age.
Given the opportunity, they can grow up to become productive citizens filled with energy and a
desire to contribute, through their service in whatever role/capacity, for the benefit of the society
at large. Moreover, if we were to make a comparative analysis with the rest of the group, it is
evident, the teenagers have an edge over certain individuals i.e., senior citizen, lifeguard etc.,
when it comes to human potential, and its eventually realization.
 But let us keep utilitarianism aside for a moment and think purely on the lines of
morality. Every system of values and conduct teaches us to think about the most vulnerable first,
in any situation. And we can all agree children are the most vulnerable, regardless of their mental
and physical capacity for facing adversity. Though one can use the same argument in favor of the
senior citizen; however, the situation at hand takes into account other factors as well. It is
because of these implicit set of moral standards that I am compelled to save the children first, in
this life & death situation.

A logical approach would also analyze the usefulness of those on the boat in regards to
their chances of survival. The teenagers, though quite young, have certain qualities that they
excel at; their ability to learn, and learn fast – allows them to be quite valuable members of the
group. Adolescence is described as one the brightest years of a child’s growth and learning.
Good at listening and following instructions; the twins are the best candidates to follow
leadership and execute tasks with coordination. Children, generally have a great sense of
appreciation for adults and listen to their instructions, especially in times of crisis. In addition,
their understanding of each other’s needs, strengths, & weaknesses will certainly help them in
the race of survival.

Thus, saving the twins is a more ethically sound approach, taking all facts into
consideration, with due respect to the rest of the group members.

Abdur Rehman Amjad Virk (Young Couple)

According to utilitarianism, it can be justified that why leaving the young couple was best
possible option. The couple recently married, so it can be inferred that both were in love with
each other and would have agreed to stand with each other in difficult times. It can also be
deduced that both have made promises of living and dying with each other. Now, if we choose
only one of them to save, it is not clear what the outcome will be. There is possibility that they
would not agree on this proposal and insist on taking both of them, which is not possible due to
paucity of space. Another scenario would be that they would decide themselves which one to be
left behind. Even in that case the outcome is not quite clear because at the moment they might
have come to an understanding, but who knows what will happen afterwards as there is a high
chance that upon returning, he/she will be overwhelmed by the thought that he should have
stayed, or he/she might fell into pits of dismal by the fact that he/she left the only person that
he/she once loved. That brings us to conclusion that even if we were to save one of them, there
exist high chance that outcome will not be what we have in mind.

Let’s us take a look at financial perspective in their scenario. It is to be noted that they
recently married and thus had no children. In other words, state or society would not have to be
worried about the expenses of their children. That leaves us with parents or siblings. In case of
parents there is a high chance that they might have other children to look after them and let’s
further assume they had no children even then they would have themselves and savings of
lifetime. For discussion let’s consider the scenario that parents had no other children and no
money, then it would be a difficult decision for state whether send them to old home or take care
of them by some monthly allowance. Now let’s consider the same for siblings. A scenario can be
they either had grown up siblings or one of their siblings was financially stable. In that case it
would cause no financial harm. Another scenario can be that their parents are alive and well and
are able to cover the expenses, still no serious threat. A scenario can be that they had no siblings.
Another possibility can be they were the only source of income for their family. Now that will
have some serious repercussions, but that leaves us with an important point to ponder that how
someone that was the sole bread earner for his family was able to cover the expense of his
honeymoon. That is possible only if he/she had a source of potential income or their financial
position was already strong enough to make such trips.

Now, let us consider the utility of this decision. First, it can be said that even our decision
is not producing a sound utility, but it is also not causing any harms to the society. Second, the
usefulness of couple was not provided in the statement anywhere at all. There was no
information about their profession or their contribution to the society. They were projected as an
ordinary couple who just recently got married. Third, how can we be someone that separates two
loving souls. We may not find love for ourselves but if someone has found it, how can we play
the role of devil.

To surmise the above discussion, it can be said that our decision was balanced and if our
decision has not resulted in any positive outcome for the society, it also has not generated any
serious repercussions.
 Faraz Nazir (Woman who is six weeks pregnant and Captain of the ship)

In this situation with the lifeboats, most people would save the ones they thought were
most worthy to live and leave the rest behind to die; we also did the same in case of captain.
After a lot of discussion, we decided to keep captain on board because we felt like he has
experience, and he can help navigate other boat members. We needed a leader who can lead
others to shore because without a Captain to guide the lifeboat, the people on board may just die
because they ended up going farther into the ocean as opposed to going towards land.

Many people would say that a captain should go down with his ship but in this scenario if
we left captain to die than there is a very strong possibility that the lifeboat survivors find
themselves stranded in the sea and eventually, they all may die. Also, there is an advantage that
when the boat gets rescued then Captain might point location of sunk ship to save the remaining
people which were left. This will give hope to people that are staying behind.

It is a common moral based rule to save women and children in any circumstance. In case
of 6-week pregnant women we unanimously decided that she should be on board because she has
a baby also leaving her behind may result in a death of two persons (baby and women) which
would be a great loss. It was a tough call at start because everyone knows she would be requiring
a lot of special care and may also not being able to help other members. Is it due assumption that
women are weaker than men? In that case there are many examples in which women have
proven to be stronger and tougher. There is a recent research in which it is stated that women’s
muscles tend to be more resistant to fatigue and workload than men’s that means they can
perform same intensity work for longer period.

The fact that she has a baby, and that life should have a chance to live gives this woman
more importance than others as she probably has her husband waiting and other children that are
dependent on her. So, she should be given full chance to live her life with her child.
 We saved women due to care and it is also ethical but on the other hand we saved captain
because of pure necessity.

Abdul Haseeb (Surgeon and Professor)

If somehow, I have the power to save certain people from the given individuals, then
we’d be saving the veteran surgeon and the professor at university. Why? The way we are
looking at this dilemma is to get the maximum interest out of it. So, let’s talk about the surgeon
first.

I’ll be keeping in view the ethical and the non-ethical perspective. In either scenario I believe
that the veteran surgeon has to be there for the journey because we don’t know how’s the journey
going to be turning out. We know what are the responsibilities of a surgeon in general. In case
there happens a mishap where someone gets hurt during the ongoing journey surgeon would be
of great use. So, in simple words, a veteran surgeon is a kind of person that would benefit a lot of
others individualities by staying true to its job and that’s exactly what my motive is. My personal
conclusion was that it is a compromise between utilitarianism and deontological. In this sense
one must subjectively judge the utility of an action versus the pure honor of doing such action.
This connects to shared knowledge, sociology, and the psychology of living in a society.

Now let’s talk about the professor at University. We very well know about the responsibilities
and we very well know how much a professor inspires its students which are going to be the new
face in future of the nation. Furthermore, the professor could be of great use teaching once back
in civilization and further still could apply her skills in the survival situation. It’s just my point of
view and if I had an option then I’ll be saving the professor. The main problem with this
dilemma, and in a way with all dilemmas as that's what makes them difficult, is the scarcity of
information provided. We do not know anything about these people except their one-sentence
descriptors, hardly enough to judge their worth at life. I was of the view ethics is a compromise
between utility and honor, and since the teacher is of limited utility and others might be of great
honor, then they instead of the prominent professor should be brought along. Then again, we do
not know who the teacher is, and he might have been a Nobel Prize laureate, or maybe the senior
had Alzheimer and would die within weeks. So, to put it into nutshell, the people I’d be choosing
for saving will be these two; the veteran surgeon and the prominent professor at the university.

Conclusion:

Irrespective of the above discussions, one thing is quite clear that it is never our decision
to decide about someone’s life. This power belongs solely to Allah Almighty. With that being
said while making such decisions, judgements tend to differ due to personal beliefs and
priorities. There are some similarities as well due to our shared culture and principles. Still, it is
very hard to say what would actually happen if any of us are confronted with such a situation and
surely under environmental dangers and time pressures, mistakes will be made. Chance will
make some decisions for you. You may not even be given a chance to consciously choose, and
end up acting impulsively to save yourself and as many others as you can. Maybe you would
simply enter shock and not be able to act, in which case others will make the hard choices for
you. However, this is why it's important to discuss now, when we're not in a sinking ship, so that
if one day that, or something similar, happens, we'll be ready to act and save lives.