The Morality of the Lifeboat

The Lifeboat Scenario.  It's a favorite device in high school ethics discussions or introductory courses in philosophy in undergraduate school.  Let's set the scene:  Imagine you find yourself in a lifeboat adrift at sea, days away from being rescued.  You are with five other people, but there is only enough food and water to keep four people alive in time to be rescued.  Your companions are a priest, a doctor, a prostitute, and an elderly woman.  The instructor then asks the loaded question:  whom do you sacrifice so that the others may survive?

The exercise, of course, demands that we suspend disbelief in the scenario itself where all sorts of outcomes of success are possible given modern technology, chance happenings, and the like. 

Needless to say, a variety of answers are possible, or even preferred by whomever is leading this discussion.  The situation ethicist would see this scenario to state that ethical judgments are relative since normal ethical rules don't apply here.  To them, someone has to die in order that others may live, and it makes no real difference who goes overboard.

Other brands of relativists would suggest that there is relative worth in the persons in question:  why not sacrifice the prostitute or the elderly woman since their worth is no doubt less than the others in the lifeboat?  This position relativizes the worth of the human person based upon utility to society (the elderly woman) or the moral condition of the person in question (the prostitute or the priest, depending on your biases).

For the Christian, two valid responses would be possible.  The first is that you voluntarily sacrifice yourself so that the others may live.  This response is akin to the choice Maximillian Kolbe made in Auschwitz.  It is the sainly response of perfect Christian love.  The other valid Christian response is to refuse to make a choice.  Everyone will remain in the lifeboat and we throw no one overboard.  This response would fulfill the Socratic dictum:  it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit an injustice.  It also recognizes the fact that a person's worth is not dependent upon their moral character or their worth to society, but rather it is an inherent quality stemming from the very nature of the human person.  All possess intrinsic worth and dignity because we are made in God's image and likeness, redeemed in Christ, and called to holiness by the Holy Spirit. 

Before we walk away smugly because we chose rightly in the hypothetical scenario, let us consider the fact that each election cycle the lifeboat scenario plays itself out, and sadly we Christians quickly become situation ethicists and relativists of various stripes. 

For Christians of a liberal persuasion, care and concern for the poor and social justice are important values.  They are right to call for a preferential option for the poor in our decisions on the common good, and they champion respect for immigrants, minority groups, and others on the margins.  However, the unborn are cast out of the political lifeboat, even though the humanity of the unborn is beyond dispute.  The unborn are cast aside for political expedience under the banner of a woman's right to choose.  The life of one is cast aside for the demands of another. 

On the other hand, Christians of a conservative persuasion are right to defend the rights of the unborn and to oppose assisted suicide and other threats to human life.  However, in doing so they often succumb to the political pressures of their party of choice in marginalizing immigrants, defending a capital punishment system that is without merit, and join the march toward the next dubious war.  Sadly some left leaning Christians also follow those drumbeats of war and still cling to the death penalty.

In reflecting on the lifeboat scenario, our goal is not to endorse one candidate or party over another.  It is rather designed to remind the Christian community of the consistent ethic of life that led us to the conclusion we made in the hypothetical lifeboat scenario.  We cannot relativize the value and dignity of any human person for political expedience.  We should be challenging both parties and all candidates to protect, defend, and respect all human life, in the words of Pope John Paul II.

This consistent ethic of life transcends the political and calls us to something far deeper.  It is in imitation of the Lord Jesus who called us to welcome the stranger, challenged us to care for the poor, defended the woman caught in adultery from execution, and bid us to suffer the little children to come to him.  Political storms will rock the lifeboat and test our resolve in caring for every human being, but Jesus is present in the storm as he is present within each human person.  The storm will abate when we realize the false choices presented to us in the political realm and instead we choose to protect everyone without question.