You are a passenger on a ship sailing across the ocean. Suddenly, your ship was overtaken by a powerful storm. You escape to a lifeboat with 25 other passengers. You notice that four of the passengers are badly injured, and unlikely to survive for more than a week. You also know that the lifeboat has enough food and water to sustain 22 passengers only. Some of the passengers are considering throwing the four injured passengers overboard in order to save the other survivors. If you were a natural law theorist, how would you solve this ethical dilemma?
Subject in ETHICS.
Answers
Answer:
i think the question is write
Answer:
Concept:
The answer to this question has to do with mankind and what it is in our nature to behave in a certain circumstance. It has to do with moral principles and moral regulations.
Explanation:
When it is suggested that the injured passengers be thrown into the ocean, I had identified this unpleasant, sorrowful feeling issue and knew what to do. Actually, this is a predicament where it must be decided whether to act or not. And which choice is superior to the others. Because in my opinion not saving another person's life is a terrible sin in the eyes of humanity.
I see three potential answers here:
- In order to save their lives, passengers can be taken on board.
- If possible, injured persons can also be given medicine. Making adjustments to the lifeboat in order to assist all the passengers
- I will only proceed with the reasoning that pushing the hurt passengers into violent acts, like murder, which goes against our "humanly purpose" to live a better life, is condemned. Even though their deaths would guarantee the survival of the 22 passengers, throwing the injured passengers is an unnatural act and against the natural law; killing someone goes against human nature. Natural law prohibits the execution of injured passengers under any circumstances.
#SPJ3