Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Violence View Post
Wow, this one really got me to thinking.

Throw an unconscious person over.

Next

Seriously though, this is so restricted that it doesn't really make for a good thought experiment. They way you've presented it gives three strict options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.

3 is clearly not an option.
2 is daft, as you've no way of being confident that either of the others would survive, especially without a conscious person to take care of them.
1 is your only option.

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario. Self-sacrifice in this instance cannot be rationally justified, as pointed out above. Where's the ethical dilemma? There isn't one really - the only question is would you be able to do what has to be done?
Um, I can rationally justify self-sacrifice, as far as morals are rational.
1. You're a human being, the difference between you and an animal is that you're not completely driven by your instincts but much rather have a choice. You're not willing to give this difference up, even if this means your death.
2. Who are you to put your right to live over the others rights to live? You can't, therefore you choose to kill yourself in order to save the rest.
3. Who are you to judge who's going to live and who's not? Depending on your world view, you might see this as God's duty or arrive at 2.


As you can see, there is not just one answer, that can be right. It depends on how you think.