The Case of the Overcrowded Lifeboat
Legal Reasoning- It would be very easy for a judge to throw the book at the first mate in this case, and charge him with the murder of the swimmers who were left behind. Defined by the state, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” While only the first mate himself will know for sure, it is safe to say that he knew the swimmer he left behind were going to die; that being said, because of his orders all of the remaining swimmers, besides the chosen, strong swimmer, were refused space aboard the life boat, condemning them to their graves. The blood of those lost swimmers is on the first mates hands. Another law the first mate failed to abide by was the principle that, “passengers must be given priority over sailors.” The first mate was selfish. His status implied that he should have been the last one aboard that life boat. And once every survivor of the storm should have been put on that life boat while him and the remaining crew swam alongside the boat. He didn't even think about the life of the pregnant women and her baby, that is just wrong. The first mate needed to do anything and everything in his power to save as many people possible, it was his duty and he failed. The first mates actions were immoral and they caused terrible harm to five individuals thinking they were going out for a beautiful vacation. Just as Holmes was in 1842, the first mate in this case deserves to be found guilty of murder of the swimmers and the baby of the pregnant women.
Deontology- According to Kant, an action needs to be universally ethical to be considered ethical. There is no way to argue that the first mates actions could be considered ethical in any way. The world would not be a better place if the entire society decided to live under the same moral codes that the first mate demonstrated. He displayed his selfishness, cowardice, and lack of a moral compass. None of these are characteristics...