Greater good

It may also be that the mother of the two children would share her food between her children, and let herself starve.
The 68 year old may feel that she had lived her life and be happy for the others, or the children, to have her share.

The two children and the 68 year-old woman probably eat less than any of the others.

The food rations would be minimal though.

Would those of you who have chosen who should go be prepared to kill them yourself or are you just going to let them starve to death?

I don't think I could do it and would probably therefore die.

Yes I think really although I suggested killing 2 people I would actually do nothing and we would all die together - much more equal and in a funny sort of way humane

Who is playing God and deciding when to rescue them?

'The Admirable Crichton' by JM Barrie. Everyone on the island could re-adjust their roles in the new circumstances...

Hope for a Captain Oates! And if I were one of the group (70+ years old. Not in perfect health, not a world-famous anything) I think I'd be a first choice not to be fed and watered. Perhaps I'd do a Virginia Woolf and go for a swim with stones in my pockets.

No it is not because the term "moral behaviour" is subjective.

You wouldn't exactly kill anyone. Just keep the (in my choice) children alive while the others died a natural death from starvation.

Oh, this is a fun subject.

I can't swim. So I think I would just find somewhere as comfortable as possible and curl up.

It would be horrible though, dying of starvation and having to watch everyone else doing so as well...

Yes, well. We can't help that can we?!

Someone's got to sort this mess out.

I'm finding it strange that the people are so defined at all. The philosopher may be a survival expert. He's only 30 too, poor lamb. My first instinct is to think of myself as the older woman, but I wouldn't be happy to starve completely, I would want a minimal amount just to keep me ticking over. God knows I could do with losing a few pounds. After me, I would want everyone else to draw lots, apart from the children, to find someone else to be on lower rations. Because suffering like that alone would be hard.

Which of those people do you think would be capable of doing the killing?

Why, the mother of course - to protect her children.

What killing?

Of course the mother would be prepared to protect her children, but presumably the others wouldn't be so keen to line up as sacrifices?

I have just been watching Long Lost Family. On a wider scale, for the "'the greatest possible good for greatest number of people" those who controlled the morals of society at one time insisted children born outside marriage were given away to others. Those who now control the morals of society feel the state should act in loco parentis and provide for such children where parents are not able to.

I could not say which of these ways has been a success, in some cases each may have been and each, at times, giving the child, who we surely should be focussing on, the worst outcome. I think it is incredibly difficult to balance the "good" of the individual with the "good" of society and, where only society is considered does it benefit in the long run.

The people on the island would have to live with whatever that small society decided which might be very difficult if they were later rescued and returned to a good life.

Does the 40 year old male doctor have his paperwork with him?
Even if he doesn't, assuming he's a GP, he should be able to sort out which two ought to die according to the NHS criteria.

Well, he'll be the first to go then!

Would those of you who have chosen who should go be prepared to kill them yourself or are you just going to let them starve to death?

I don't think I could do it and would probably therefore die.

In reality, there would be edibles on or around the Island (which is why it's best to keep fitter people fed and watered first) - fish, if nothing else!

I chose myself. I know what lot of plants are, so would be dismissed as harmleses elderly lady and would quietly go off and eat seaweeds and grasses or whatever.

As I said before - in philosophy, discussion cannot begin until you have defined your terms. All the infinite scenarios that we have suggested just go to show how potty these philosophical and hypothetical questions are. I'm with jing - eat the philosopher then you needn't listen to him any more!

I agree Mishap, just hot air.

That desert island scenario was given to us when I was doing my MSC I Biological Ethics. We never came to a conclusion because there were too many variables. They could have fished for more food.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but isn't the whole point of philosophy the debate rather than the conclusion?

nightowl