When thinking about Kant's cases of "equivocal justice," I always come back to the right of necessity. I keep thinking of our boat scenario except instead of two people it is a captain with his crew and guests who are all on board. Now, we have all heard and read and seen that a captain is supposed to go down with his ship. There are indeed some statutes, that come with prosecutions and punishments, that back up this ever so fictional idea that the captain should stay with his ship, or at least be the last one to exit. In the Merchant Marines Officers' Handbook for instance one of the first duties of the "master"/captain is to be "1. The last man to leave the vessel" (Allen, 1). Today we see abandoning one's ship and its passengers as something of an atrocious and selfish act, and we charge people with it to much of the full extent that is possible. Although it seems terrible, it is not that out of line with the right of necessity; although given no legal right to leave and let the rest of ones passengers fend for themselves or drown, there is also this necessity to save yourself. According to Kant, it becomes more business of the conscious rather than for the court.
I wonder what Kant would think about our more or less charging and punishing to the max those captains who do abandon their ships...in some cases wouldn't we have done the same? Even if we do try to make it a matter of the court should they not show some sort of indulgence (leniency) as according to Kant, even though it doesn't really seem to be "fair" to us or those he/she left?
Allen, Craig H. "The Captain's Duty on a Sinking Ship." WashingtonLaw.edu, n.d. Web. <http://www.law.washington.edu/Directory/docs/Allen/Publications/Article_1994_CaptainsDutySinkingShipTake2.pdf>.
You pose an interesting point! I completely agree that it would be a hard decision to choose your life or the lives of others when push comes to shove. No one can say what they would do unless they were in the situation, but it's important to ask yourself whether you, as a ship captain, value your life over the lives of those you are responsible for. Kant believes that in that situation, the right of necessity overpowers any selfishness that could be argued. The question to be answered is if the right of necessity applies to your own life or the necessity to save the lives of those on your ship.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good point about what exactly the right of necessity applies to in this situation. As the captain of a ship, he is knowingly responsible for the lives of the passengers on his ship. That is his job. It is a very different situation for someone who is not responsible for the lives of the other passengers. We could argue that, what if it was a father and his son that were the ones who must save themselves. We would also view a father saving himself instead of his son as an atrocious act. This is because, as a father, he has the responsibility of ensuring the safety and health of his child. This mirrors the responsibility the captain claims over his passengers.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that both the captain's and father's right of necessity is to putting the lives of those you are responsible for before your own. If the world did not behave in this way, it would be hard to function as a society. Now it is easy to argue this, but it is good to point out that it is hard to truly know until you are in a situation where you must decide whether or not to save your own life or the life of another. It is like the button example we used in class. Most of us would push the button to blow up the other classroom and deal with the consequences after. But if it was our family in the other room, the situation would be altered completely.