Moral Dilemma - An Exercise in Reality

[Vonderbach]

This is an exercise in moral decision making that I concocted after watching a recent "unnamed" movie. I'll leave it to you to figure out the movie, but it's not really important, just the inspiration. This is not a brain teaser, it is a moral dilemma. There is no right or wrong answer, but I would really like to hear the reason behind your decision.

Here's the rules and the setting:

• You are 1 of 100 people on a desert island, far from any populated region.
• A boat arrives to rescue you; there is ample room for all 100 people plus crew.
• The boat ride is 5 days long to any civilized area with supplies.
• There is only enough food on the boat to feed and hydrate 50 people for the 5 day journey.
• The other 50 people may die of starvation/dehydration in 2 days time if they stay on the island.
• If all 100 people leave on the boat, they may all die of starvation/dehydration in 3 days time.

Please choose one answer, there are only two options.

 

[dragonbusa]

split the rashings and hope for the best, let god decide who lives and who dies

 

[NIGHTFLIGHT]

I would try take off in the boat myself so i would have plenty 2 eat.
ARe there imunity idols on the island? IF they had any supplys or warm clothes I would steal them before i took off

 

[BusaWhipped]

The rules really aren't detailed enough to make a decision. I made a few assumptions:
1) There is only enough food on the boat to feed and hydrate 50 people for the 5 day journey. - This is bare minimum rationing of food and water, otherwise rationing would allow all 100 to survive the entire journey.
2) The boat has no communications device to call for assistance during the journey.

I voted to to take 50. Selection of that 50 is another dilemma. I watched 2012 last night.

 

[Greenbean]

We leave NO ONE behind! We try and go on faith and faith alone. At least that's the way I roll.

 

[Vonderbach]

The rules really aren't detailed enough to make a decision. I made a few assumptions:
1) There is only enough food on the boat to feed and hydrate 50 people for the 5 day journey. - This is bare minimum rationing of food and water, otherwise rationing would allow all 100 to survive the entire journey.
2) The boat has no communications device to call for assistance during the journey.

I voted to to take 50. Selection of that 50 is another dilemma. I watched 2012 last night.

I'll revise the post, but yes, your assumptions are correct. (I just realized I can no longer edit it, would you mind adding those caveats?)

Thanks

 

[Acehole]

All 100..eat a few on the way home...eewww


Why do i feel like playing soccer?

 

[badazgtp]

Take all 100 and what ever happens, happens. If the big man upstairs thinks it's time for someone to go, he'll decide that. I would hate to leave someone behind that would have lived and take someone HE had plans for anyway.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

BBQ 50 people and then have a nice trip home without worry of your 5 day supply !

 

[jefferycarman]

You make the best attempt you can for all. Realistically even with only food enough for the 50, you could make it with the majority. Although poor health upon arrival would be a concern, you feed and nourish the sick, weak and crew first. The others should be able to survive on a bare minimum to basically nothing for the five days.

I know which way I would go. It might not save everyone, but it would give the best odds to the majority.

 

[skydivr]

As long as my daughter was guaranteed to make it on the boat, I would volunteer to stay behind so she could have my ration.

 

[Vonderbach]

As long as my daughter was guaranteed to make it on the boat, I would volunteer to stay behind so she could have my ration.

My favorite reply so far. (No judgement, just my opinion.)

You make the best attempt you can for all. Realistically even with only food enough for the 50, you could make it with the majority. Although poor health upon arrival would be a concern, you feed and nourish the sick, weak and crew first. The others should be able to survive on a bare minimum to basically nothing for the five days.

I know which way I would go. It might not save everyone, but it would give the best odds to the majority.

It should be assumed (I apologize for not making this more clear) that the nourishment for 50 people is the bare minimum. Rationing would only end up taking the bare minimum from another person.

 

[k03gsxr750]

Crew plus the best suited to make the journey would go on the boat. This would include both the folks that will make the trip possible and the people who would most certainly not survive if left on the Island (injured, sick, elderly)

The next "crew" would be on the island working as hard as possible collecting food and water, they may not make it but these would be folks in the group with survivor skills and experience.

This is situation without a right answer, I feel like the only thing to do is give the best shot at survival to everyone. I would be tempted to send up to 75 on the boat and keep 25 on the island if I felt like the other 25 on the boat would be the folks that understood how to stretch rations or find new supplies (fishing collecting rain etc etc).

Thank good I live on a mountain and this is a highly unlikely scenario for me to be in

 

[Vonderbach]

Remember, there is only 2 days worth of nourishment for 50 people. There would be no option to forage for more food or water. Imagine a desert island with a box of supplies, no vegetation, no potable water source.

 

[Goatkart]

take all 100 people.... 3 days of food is 3 days of you being able to solve your problem...

setup water stills on the boats to make water from sea water, do a slight dilution of the fresh water supply with salt water (perfectly safe)

recycle urine into fresh water





in either case.... ANYONE can live without water and food for 5 days, let alone 2 unless they are dead walking onto the boat from dehydration and starvation... and 3 day supply is more than enough to get them to the point where the next two are livable...


all aboard!!!

 

[Vonderbach]

take all 100 people.... 3 days of food is 3 days of you being able to solve your problem...

setup water stills on the boats to make water from sea water, do a slight dilution of the fresh water supply with salt water (perfectly safe)

recycle urine into fresh water





in either case.... ANYONE can live without water and food for 5 days, let alone 2 unless they are dead walking onto the boat from dehydration and starvation... and 3 day supply is more than enough to get them to the point where the next two are livable...


all aboard!!!

Gah...you're trying to invent new rules.

The dilemma only works when you adhere to the rules. So when I say that there only enough food/water to survive for 5 days, one should throw out any knowledge of science or biology and just accept the fact as stated.

You guys are too smart for this.

 

[semi]

try to take everyone but kill and filet the first person who threatens to mess everything up for everyone else which would give everyone else enough food, make sure to put enough fluids aside for the crew to keep them capable of getting everyone back to civilization and ration the rest among all the others...then, try to make sure you are in the shade as much as possible and hope for the best...anyone who "rocks the boat" goes overboard immediately

 

[PandaNin]

We're on a boat. On the water. I'm doing some serious fishing! Plenty of food.

Rules are arbitrary guidelines and should not inhibit our ability to solve non-arbitrary problems.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

All the men could make love to the women hence creating another generation and then you would not feel so guilty for leaving 50 behind....???

 

[Vonderbach]

Rules are arbitrary guidelines and should not inhibit our ability to solve non-arbitrary problems.

But they're not arbitrary....that's the point of the exercise. By creating alternative options, you are removing the moral dilemma, which is the point of the exercise.