In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg, and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboatintended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to belightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in thissitua±on was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an ac±on, hereasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. Ifhe did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could havesaved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done andeveryone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, ifthe captain a²empted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deathswould be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and le³ng all die. Thecaptain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great eForts ofrowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacri´ced. In this situa±on itwould be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As itturned out, aµer days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried forhis ac±on. 1. Did the captain make the right decision? Why or why not?
2. What other choices could the captain have made?
3. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? Why?
4. Which ethical theory or theories could be applied here? How?

Answer and Explanation:

1. There is no "right" or "wrong" decision here since each would be to narrow to qualify the captain's actions. This is rather a case of survival  and obligation (deontological) that required the captain to save the ones that he could since he could not save everyone and having some alive is better than losing everyone.

2. As hopeless as it may have seemed, the captain could have waited for a rescue team even though there was most likely none called or continued to paddle regardless but that would definitely kill them all(utilitarianism). this consequently leaves him with one choice- the one he made.

3. in the eyes of law, the captain would have still committed a crime and would go to jail since he is entitled to deciding who lives or dies and owns nobody's lives. however it is known to all and sundry that he did what he had to and may be considered right(albeit a grey area)

4.Two categories of ethical theory  can be applied here. They include: the deontological viewpoint and the consequentalist theory/utilitarianism.

the article must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of states within a proscribed deadline.

source:

the anti federalists was a movement that was opposed to the creation of a us federal government. although they were not as organized as the federalists, they also had a large group of leaders, especially in state politics.

the statement "now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people” represents the concerns of the anti federalists.

they strongly believed that the federalists were representing the interests of aristocratic elements of society at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, who lived in a rural society.

their fear for the creation of a strong federal government and the president’s power of veto in their opinion would create a tyrannical rule that would dominate the people. they defended the importance of restraining the government’s power towards people at any cost.