Ethical Dilemmas

The subject of ethics has always been somewhat difficult for me. It is not that I am unethical or allow unethical behavior; however, the reality is that I have spent most of my business life applying rules and policies. As such, I rarely have viewed situations in ethical terms. I do not make ethical judgments, rather I simply apply the rules.

Recently I came across a tale, one that has helped me to better understand what ethics is about.

As the tale goes, in 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the life boat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for the deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing, and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be discarded overboard. Before implementing his plan, all on the lifeboat were saved by a passing ship.

So, what about the ethical reasoning of the captain. Was his reasoning correct? Was the reasoning of those in dissent correct? Let's take a look at some ethical concepts and place the captain's reasoning in context:

Virtuous Ethics – The Captain acted on the basis that this was his decision to make and that the decision would be a reflection of his individual character and integrity.

Ethics for the Greater Good – the terrible decision to sacrifice the weaker passengers in order to increase the chances of survival for the remaining ones is a classic example of utilitarianism – i.e. the humanity of the ends would justify the inhumanity of the means.

Universal Ethics – The Captain was acting out of duty and obligation in the belief that there was one "right" or at least "appropriate" decision to be made.

What caught my attention in this scenario is that ethically, the captain was unable to live with the belief that if everyone died no one would be responsible for the deaths. It is this flaw that, in my mind, ultimately leads the captain to make a rash judgment in a moment of crisis without really examining the possibility of rescue. By doing so, he attempted to take advantage of the weaker passengers in the name of "survival of the fittest."

Now, if it were me I would have considered rotating passengers in and out of the boat, or asked for volunteers rather than selecting the weaker passengers. Also, I would have delayed my decision for as long as possible to maximize the opportunity for rescue.But, isn't hindsight great.

Regardless, there is no clear-cut rule to apply.