Shipwrecked and the Moral Compass
During January, we had an awkward amount of time between the end of examination period and the Lunar New Year holiday. There wasn’t enough time to begin a new unit or do any “real” teaching, so I pulled out one of the more interesting group discussions for a class activity. The premise was simple: A cruise ship sank and ten people were able to make it onto a lifeboat. The problem is that there are too many people and if they don’t get rid of two people, the boat will sink.[1] Each person has a pro and a con that would justify their survival/death. The ten survivors are as follows:
- Sailor – only one with navigation skills; alcoholic.
- Teenage Idol – idol of all the teenagers worldwide; if she dies, it will cause worldwide depression.
- Doctor – gambling problem; only one who can help the sick people.
- Vice President – VP of a powerful state; if he dies, may cause a war.
- Veteran – lot of survival skills; PTSD from fighting in the Vietnam War.
- Sailor Boy – learning navigation skills; is sure the crew is responsible for the sinking of the ship.
- Widow – six children and no one to look after them; is currently pregnant.
- Millionaire – unfriendly and wants to buy his way to life; promises the survivors to share his money.
- Scientist – discovered a formula to cure cancer; severely injured when the ship sank.
- Crying Girl – doesn’t take up much space on the boat; is a brat that screams and cries nonstop.
For this activity, the students first had to decide for themselves who the two people they thought should die. Afterwards, they were put into groups and as a group had to come to a consensus and justify it to the class. I already had in my mind who I thought they would choose, but there were a few surprises along the way.
In most of the classes, they chose the Millionaire and the Crying Girl (the two I figured most would choose), but it was their reasoning that piqued my interest.[2] For the Millionaire, most argued that he was greedy, unfriendly, and useless, so he should be the one to die. For the Crying Girl, they argued that she was annoying and served no purpose, so there was no reason to keep her alive. However, in another class, it was argued that the Sailor should die. When I asked why, the group responded that it was likely he was responsible for the cruise ship sinking, so he should die as punishment. For the majority of my students, they made their choices based on utility – the survivors served a purpose to the survival of the group. For other groups, their argument was based on justice – “You caused the boat to sink, so you shouldn’t survive.”
As I was talking with one student during their preparation time, he looked at me and said, “This is so difficult.” I asked him why that was. He pointed to the Widow and said that she doesn’t have much use on the boat and if she has the baby that would take up more space, but it wouldn’t be right to kill her. I asked why he thought that and he said, “I don’t know. It just feels wrong.”
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt argues that intuition plays a major role in the development of our moral compass. He brings up many short vignettes and poses them as questions to people to see if they would judge it as morally wrong. For example,
A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.[3]
What he finds is that many people would say that the above example is morally wrong, but would not be able to explain why it was wrong. In fact, they could also be convinced otherwise after a little pressure.
Haidt uses the analogy of the Rider and Elephant to demonstrate this phenomenon. In the analogy, the Rider represents rational thought while the Elephant represents emotions.[4] The idea is that we come to our judgments rather quickly and intuitively (i.e., emotionally) while it takes longer for our reason (the Rider) to step back and guide our emotions in a productive manner. This isn’t to say that emotions are uncontrollable or bad, but rather that they occur instinctually.
I’ve often found in my discussions with people that when I make a value judgment on an issue, it often comes intuitionally (using Myers-Briggs, I fall into the INFJ category, so it feeds into that). It isn’t until much later that I can actually rationalize why I feel the way that I do about a topic. Or it takes processing it with other people in a full on discussion. In this regard, I relate with Michael Scott from The Office when he says, “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence, and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.”[5] When we try to come to terms with why we believe something, perhaps this is just part of the process: We make our snap judgments and later rationalize.
When I first read through the assignment I mentioned, after reading the bios of the different characters I already knew who I would sacrifice. It wasn’t until my students asked me who I would choose that the rational part came.
So, just for fun: Which two of the ten would you choose to sacrifice? How did you come to your conclusion?
[1] The activity was adapted from https://en.islcollective.com/english-esl-worksheets/material-type/role-plays-and-improvisation-activities/shipwrecked-survival-game/2243 . The activity is meant to be on the level of ESL students, so while it may seem simple, it is actually a challenging activity for them.
[2] It must be noted that my students have difficulty expressing complex ideas in English, as it is not their first language. While their responses may seem basic in English, my co-teacher informed me that their debates in Chinese were much more nuanced and critical.
[3] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, New York: Pantheon Books (2012), 3
[4] Ibid., 53.
[5]Link to this particular scene in The Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDQDDhLZO-4
Image taken from: https://www.bustle.com/p/whats-the-prize-for-shipwrecked-2019-this-years-castaways-could-win-some-serious-cash-15833301
About the Author
Dylan Branson
Small town Kentuckian living and learning in the big city of Hong Kong.10 responses to “Shipwrecked and the Moral Compass”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dylan,
Powerful practical exercise. For your information I can’t answer the question you posed to your students. There is something about choosing who lives or dies that just doesn’t settle well!
I as well rely a lot on intuition but I have found that it can let me down. How do you navigate life when your intuition and a certain amount of reason isn’t enough?
I think that’s the point where it’s important to turn to your community and reflect on the perspectives they bring. It’s easy to get trapped in our heads and to spiral or to continue justifying to ourselves whatever action we take. But it takes on a different meaning when you bring others into the equation. When we don’t bring others in, we get locked in the echo chamber of our minds, which makes justification for certain actions easier for sure. But that’s only because we think we’re the only ones affected.
Only 2? 😉
I found it fascinating this week to read about logic being a means for justification, not the starting point in seeking truth.
Bahaha. You can throw more of them out, John 😉
Definitely. When we’re trying to justify something, all of a sudden we pull out every stop (no matter how nonsensical it may be) and try to explain step by step why it’s right or wrong. We often reach our conclusion without knowing our process. I think we’re afraid of being wrong, so when we’re called out on something or asked to justify it without having thought about it before, it causes a sense of anxiety (like in the example Haidt gives of his wife asking him to put his dishes away and his mind merged all of the events of the day into one conglomeration that, while technically true, did not actually have anything to do with why he didn’t put his dishes away).
Dylan,
I’m an Enneagram Type 2 and an ISTJ, so my inclination is to have the correct number of individuals in the boat and have 2 others in the water holding on to the outside. I’d set up a rotation schedule to make sure each person had time in the water, though I’d make allowances for the young, elderly, or injured or sickly. The goal would be to try and keep all alive for as long as possible. But if you pushed me to stick to the rules of the assignment, then I’d simply ask who is willing to not be included. I would guess the scientist and the veteran, possibly the doctor, would opt out, as they have a bent toward wanting to heal or protect others.
Intuition and reason are fascinating to me. Like Greg, my intuition has been incorrect at times, and I learn the hard way if I’ve followed it. But other times it’s served me well. I think the two serve as a checks and balance, and if incorporated within a community, all the better. In leadership I think it’s integral to work in a collaborative way. The Trump presidency has been a case study for the damage done when one individual makes snap judgments and follows gut intuition. It doesn’t always go well, especially on a national level, and especially if they have a Twitter account.
Yeah. It’s important to have that system of checks and balances between intuition and reason. When we have one without the other it can create a lot of unhealthy scenarios. When I first took the MBTI I think I was very much into the F spectrum, but over the years I think that I’ve begun the balance out (should probably retake it sometime; would be interested to see). Or even using the DiSC, I have an SC personality, one that at the core relies on intuition but manifests itself in a more logical manner. Having that sense of self-awareness is important, but it’s also important that we realize the value of the other side. Lest we end up creating another intellectual “us vs them.”
Dylan – INFL, I think Jason Clark shares the same MBTI type with you. Makes sense given your thoughtfulness and ability to empathize. Before I saw your quote, I was going to quote the office, too, “I’d save the receptionist. Just to make that clear.” Your case study of morality isn’t as hypothetical as one might think. As AI advances, moral questions like this will need to be asked. Say a self-driving car must swerve to the left or right and the right is a bus full of young students, and the left is a young family. AI will need to make a choice. It gets scary when I think about people paying money to be able to circumvent the technology or pay for a ranking system.
I think the other thing with the AI issue is that in doing so, we’re also effectively taking away our need/desire to be moral creatures. These conundrums are tough; it’s a decision we’re also likely never to make. But when there’s no clear black or white answer and we’re asked to justify our decisions, what becomes our criteria? Is it an ethic of aesthetics? Is it a utilitarian ethic? The scenario you described allows for a “get out of jail free card” so to speak in making decisions, but someone had to program that into the AI for it to take effect. It’s a fascinating thought experiment in and of itself, though turning it into a reality is quite frightening too.
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt argues that intuition plays a major role in the development of our moral compass
where does intuition come from?
Making judgments is so challenging. Sometimes in prayer, particularly at the Lord’s Table, I will ask for help and forgiveness for my false judgments. Then, what about those judgments I perceive as true. What makes them true, anyways? Well bro, it seems that I’m still deep int eh midst of processing this book 🙂
Sweet + fun example from class! Thanks for sharing it and for including us in it.
I think that my choice would be to not ‘get rid’ of anyone. But, to take turns swimming in the water. Presuming they are adrift in the Caribbean. They will need food so, perhaps some of those (excited go-getter types) more inclined to fish, will spend some extra time in the water for those who may me too injured for water time. Consider the options before dumping anyone. Along the way to rescue (if that’s the outcome), some may die anyways thus, becoming extra food for those remaining struggling to survive (cue ‘disgust’ response)…!