Right to life

[Drax]

Third option: Expand island resources via outside help.

[monster]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

an isolated island (that means NO outside contact)

Originally Posted by Drax

Third option: Expand island resources via outside help.

duh

[Drax]

Originally Posted by monster

duh

Duh nothing. His island policy might be no outside contact now. That doesn't mean he can't change his policy for the good of his people.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Drax

Duh nothing. His island policy might be no outside contact now. That doesn't mean he can't change his policy for the good of his people.

To Drax:
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It is one of the rules that were stipulated when the thought experiment was set out. Tinkering with this defeats the point of thinking about it at all. While I like your lateral thinking, in this case, it doesn't fit the situation.


General comment:
This sort of scenario is often tossed around in undergraduate philosophy courses to get people thinking about these issues.

The most robust variation I have seen involves a damaged space ship. It is cruising back to earth with 10 people on board, when the oxygen system fails. It cannot be repaired. The reserve tanks only hold enough oxygen to keep five people alive until the ship reaches Earth (at maximum oxygen conservation). The ship cannot be accelerated. No help is available. The only options are:
1. choose five people and kill them, thus allowing the other five to survive. The choice can be random or considered.
2. all die together.
This scenario removes any doubt about getting help or some people struggling through.


Option 1 has the advantage that five more people survive than option 2, but at the price that we have to actively kill five people. I think that the active killing/passive killing distinction is morally insignificant - either way, we are making a decision that leads to their death.
Option 1 may be objected to on the grounds that it places an unfair burden for the survival of others onto a few individuals. This is generally considered bad. However, in this particular scenario, it might be replied that there is no real burden, since the unlucky individuals would die under option 2 anyway.

For these reasons I would choose option 1.

The next decision is whether to choose who to kill by considered decision or random means.

While randomness has a certain clean simple appeal, what if it results in killing the entire crew, leaving the passengers to die because they can't operate the ship?
What if the passenger list includes, for example, two indispensible crew members, Einstein, Ghandi, Mandela, Monet, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Amin? Random choosing from this lot would seem stupid.

Yet, if we are to decide carefully .... how the hell are we to choose? Unlike the list above, most people are much nearer the middle of the moral spectrum, in the broad shades of almost indistinguishable gray.
And remember - if we spend more than one day arguing about it, we've used up extra oxygen and now have to kill six people...

I get as far as firmly choosing option 1 before getting bogged down.
So for PH's example, yes, I believe we have to reduce population by 200. I agree with HLJ that there is no immediate reason to target the infants, unless we are thinking of a "last on - first off" rule, which seems silly.
I'd be wary of a random selection. It might end up killing the people who most enrich the lives of everyone else. That only leaves the option of calling for volunteers (not likely to make up the numbers), or thinking long and hard about who to kill.

Incredibly hard as such a deliberation would be, to NOT face up to killing 200 now would lead to the certain deaths (from famine) of many more than 200 people in the foreseeable future. Bite the bullet, and save as many as you can.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The most robust variation I have seen involves a damaged space ship. It is cruising back to earth with 10 people on board, when the oxygen system fails. It cannot be repaired. The reserve tanks only hold enough oxygen to keep five people alive until the ship reaches Earth (at maximum oxygen conservation). The ship cannot be accelerated. No help is available. The only options are:
1. choose five people and kill them, thus allowing the other five to survive. The choice can be random or considered.
2. all die together.
This scenario removes any doubt about getting help or some people struggling through.

The Cold Equations.

[Drax]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

To Drax:
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders.

Exactly. It's the leader's, and any truly benevolent leader would change his policies to benefit his people.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

To Drax:
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It is one of the rules that were stipulated when the thought experiment was set out. Tinkering with this defeats the point of thinking about it at all. While I like your lateral thinking, in this case, it doesn't fit the situation.

Originally Posted by Drax

Exactly. It's the leader's, and any truly benevolent leader would change his policies to benefit his people.

Exactly, not.
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It isn't a policy of the leader. It isn't a policy at all.
It is one of the rules stipulated when the thought experiment was designed. The island is isolated by geography, by the nature of things. There are no other islands within reach.

The point of this example is to make us think about situations where there are too many people and not enough resources.
This is worth thinking about because planet Earth is rapidly heading toward that situation, if it isn't there already.
Your solution involves suddenly adding extra resources. In the context of thinking about planet Earth, you solution is akin to suggesting we send people off to another habitable planet nearby. Problem is, there are no habitable planets we can reach, or even that we (yet) know about.