Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 3:04pm

Thanks for the links, Doone. I agree. Extraordinary circumstances do prevail.

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on January 2, 2011 at 3:10pm

Dammit Dallas; why are you trying to make my head hurt this early into the New Year ?!

I couldn't answer this some 45 years ago, when I was given a very similar HS English writing assignment.  But I will give it some more thought. 

 

Happy New Year!

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 3:28pm

but in the end it's all about emotions and it's understandable the survivors distance themselves from him. He reminds them of the unfairness of their survival and the other people's untimely deaths.

 

Yes, from an emotional point of view, you can understand why they did it. But from an ethical point of view, it seems rather cowardly to reap the benefits of his actions, and then shun him as a bad person when your back on dry land.

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 3:42pm

Yea, I get that. I would not be too harsh on them either, in reality. It is such a difficult position to be in. However, I would like to think that if I were a survivor in a situation like that, that I would have the cojones to stand by my convictions.

 

Perhaps survivor's guilt drives that kind of reaction. But survivor's guilt has always struck me as the kind of response you get from theistic, karmic, or purpose-seeking reasoning. Instead of just seeing the survival (like in a plane crash) as some sort of random occurance (which it is), they seek out meaning or purpose in their survival, which leads to confusion, guilt, or arrogance (God saved ME for a purpose). Does that make sense?

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 4:16pm

I'll have to pass. I don't think I could bear to read a book like that. How sad.

Permalink Reply by Jaume on January 3, 2011 at 9:28am

How sad indeed. It's one of the essential few books of the last century.

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on January 2, 2011 at 3:15pm

Wow. One of those situations with no clear 'winner.' 

Yikes. 

I guess my actions would be different based on what role I was in at the time. 

Commander?

Medic?

Passanger?

Is there clear authority? 

Is there a void where it's obvious someone needs to step up, or we are all going to die? 

How did they come about the information that the boat won't hold the full roster?

 

Too many variables to make a standing decision, but I can say one thing:

The guy that isn't fighting for his place on the boat.. the guy that isn't fighting for survival...is probably the only unbiased party.

However the guy that knows his end is near might not be in the best frame of mind to make rational decisions. 

"Talking it out" might not lead to the best outcome. That will only grow fear, breed resentment and make paranoia flourish. That's when fights break out, and when the survival rates drop....for everyone.

 

Quietly killing people is probably the best way to go about things.

I mean, if it's possible on a small boat.

I'm feeling the same with this scenario as I did with 'The Mist."

They had that bitch tied up. They knew she was going to make trouble. They knew she was going to cause a HUGE division that would cost lives.

They should have at least gagged her or at most toss her in a storeroom somewhere for "safety."

By tossing her in a storeroom, I mean killing her in a way that looked accidental. Problem solved.

 

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but I do know that it is within human nature to make judgement calls of who is going to be helpful, and who is going to be the opposite. We have these instincts from back in the day when these decisions literally meant "who gets to eat, and who starves to death?" No one wants to have to make those choices, but we are equipped to deal with it. That is why we HAVE higher reasoning... to work out what is best for the species as a whole. 

 

Removing those that aren't going to make it, or those that you know will only endanger lives elsewhere is probably the most moral thing I could come up with.

Doing it in a way that disrupts the population the least is probably the safest manner to do it in.  

 

So yeah. I guess my answer is to quietly (and humanely) kill those with the least chance of living. 

Then move on to those that are a danger to the others. The coward. The idiot. The crazy person. Whatever the danger is, you quietly and calmly remove it...

Then probably yourself, afterwards. 

Sorry, but if you are going for the good of the group, that means one less body, one less mouth to feed, one less...whatever. 

Since you can't make a decision concerning yourself..you'd be too biased....The moral thing to do is carry out your plan to stabilize the population and ensure it's safety the best you can...then offer yourself up for vote by those remaining. 

If you are more of a benefit than not, they'll want you to stay.

If not?

Well, don't play if you can't pay.

If you are ok making decisions on other people's lives, you better buck up when it's your turn. 

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 3:33pm

Yes, I have seen it. Twice I think, but it's been many years. It is a good movie, from what I recall. Of course, what is memorable about it is the terrible situation. As far as production quality, acting, dialogue, etc., it is very much an average movie of its time. It is also short -- only about 90 minutes. Oddly enough, it is not available on DVD, or so it seems. Amazon.com still only has it listed on VHS.

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on January 2, 2011 at 4:00pm

Hmm.. I see now that no one else directly addressed the issue.

...and I guess that means I'm the only one up here that immediately decided to go all ninja assassin.

*whistles innocently and tries not to look like a sociopath.*

Now what's the REAL moral of this story?

 

Never go boating with Misty. 

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 4:01pm

: )

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on January 4, 2011 at 11:07pm

I have to admit, she's managed to wring it out (the situation) like a wet mop!

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on January 2, 2011 at 4:06pm

No I wouldn't be. 

You'd let me kill off all the weak and troublesome of the lot first and THEN kill me so you are only guilty of one crime. 

 

..I've ensured my survival until the last level of this little game, my dear!

Hopefully long enough for help to arrive!