The Lifeboat With a Counting Problem
A ferry strikes a reef at night with 40 passengers aboard. One lifeboat holds 30. The captain must decide how to fill it. Passengers include 12 children, 8 crew members trained in rescue, and 20 adults of varying health; two adults are the ship's owners, who insist they have priority because they paid for premium cabins. Seas are rising and the lifeboat cannot return for a second trip before the vessel sinks, which the captain estimates will occur in 20 minutes. The captain has time to load perhaps 30 people if loading begins immediately, fewer if debate continues. A passenger proposes a lottery among all 40. A crew member proposes taking children and crew first, then filling remaining seats by lottery.
1. Evaluate the captain's situation using at least two distinct ethical frameworks, and state which recommendation each supports.
Read the worked answer
A consequentialist analysis asks which allocation minimizes expected deaths and suffering. Because the boat cannot return, the choice is zero-sum over seats. The crew-first proposal has a consequentialist rationale beyond sentiment: trained crew may improve survival prospects for everyone aboard during the crossing, so their inclusion can be justified instrumentally rather than as a special claim. Children-first is harder to justify on pure headcount, since a child and an adult each count as one life; it must rest on further premises, such as remaining life-years or a duty to protect those least able to protect themselves.
A Kantian analysis forbids using persons merely as means. The owners' premium-cabin claim treats other passengers as instruments for purchased advantage and cannot be universalized as a rule for emergency allocation; it fails. A lottery respects each person as an equal rational agent and avoids making any life a mere instrument, which is its strength. Its weakness is that it ignores the instrumental value of crew and any special duties toward children.
2. The captain has roughly 20 minutes. How should time pressure affect the choice of procedure, as opposed to the choice of outcome?
Read the worked answer
Time pressure changes the decision problem from "which allocation is ideally just" to "which procedure is both defensible and executable." A procedure that cannot be completed is not a procedure; if debate consumes the loading window, everyone dies and the deliberation has produced the worst outcome by any framework.
The defensible move is to adopt a rule that is justifiable ex ante and fast ex post. A hybrid satisfies this: crew load first on instrumental grounds, children next on protective grounds, remaining seats by lottery, with the captain announcing the rule before drawing so no one can manipulate it. Announcing the rule in advance matters because it prevents the appearance of favoritism and preserves the lottery's legitimacy. The captain should also commit to a hard cutoff, for example beginning the draw at minute ten regardless of objections. This is a case where procedural legitimacy under constraint is the ethically relevant virtue, not optimality.