Navigating Morality in Justice: The Lifeboat Case and the Clash Between Utilitarianism and Individual Rights

I’m currently taking the course Justice by Harvard Professor Michael J. Sandel and have decided to share my personal reflections in response to the discussion questions. My opinions are intended to contribute to a thoughtful dialogue—not to persuade or convince. To follow along meaningfully, I recommend becoming familiar with the content of Sandel’s book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (© 2009 by Michael J. Sandel, used with permission from Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC).

 Chapter 2 - The Greatest Happiness Principle/Utilitarianism

Question: "In the lifeboat case, is morality a matter of counting lives and weighing costs and benefits, or are certain moral duties and human rights so fundamental that they rise above such calculations? And if that's the case - be they natural, or sacred, or inalienable, or categorical - how can we identify them? And what makes them fundamental?"

The Lifeboat case serves as a compelling exploration of our moral choices in desperate situations. In those extreme cases, questions such as “who has the right to live” or “who should be sacrificed” plunge us into the heart of the ethical frameworks we rely on depending on our background. The conflict here between utilitarianism and deontological ethics illustrates the intense moral tensions we face in our global community.

The Challenges of Utilitarianism

While utilitarianism—a decision-making theory that asserts the idea that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness—may hold relevance in certain contexts, applying it to situations involving the deliberate taking of a human life is deeply problematic. Opinions often differ on what constitutes the "greater good." So, justifying the killing of one person solely on the basis of potential benefits to a larger group is not only morally tenuous—it is dangerous. Therefore, this philosophy should not be applied lightly where human life is at stakes.

In this example, the men did not conduct a unconsciously fair and unbiased pick. On the contrary, I am convinced that they chose the cabin boy based on the assumption that his life held less value because he was first and foremost the help, young, and destitute. His nearing death did not qualify him as good as dead. He still could have overcame his health crisis. Thus, this argument that the cabin boy's young age, lower social status, and his imminent death made his life more sacrificial than that of the other passengers, while appearing logical within the framework of utilitarianism, raises critical ethical challenges and unsettling dilemmas.

When it comes to ethical dilemmas, we often see people being more inclined to help or save a well-known individual rather than an unknown person—even if the context is ethically equivalent. This is also called the identifiable victim effect (en.wikipedia.org). But prioritizing the greater good does not always hold in dire situations. For example, I would choose to save my child rather than prioritize what maximizes the overall happiness of the community. This highlights the subjective nature of utilitarian assessments, revealing that what one person sees as beneficial, another may not. This subjectivity can result in grave consequences, as we have seen throughout history. When societies privilege the happiness of the majority, they risk legitimizing injustices against the minority (colonialism, neo-colonialism, slavery), leading to ethical erosion.

The Case for Individual Rights

As you may have noticed by now, my values align more closely with the deontological perspective, which argues that moral duties and human rights should guide our decisions, regardless of the outcomes. In the Lifeboat scenario, sacrificing the cabin boy violates his fundamental rights. As I pointed out earlier, the decision of the three men reflects prejudices rooted primarily in social class, for if the boy had been born into an aristocratic family, they would never have perceived his life as expendable.

Moreover, the fact that he lacked dependents would not be an important factor in the decision making equation. The adults survivors fail to consider that this boy was on that journey to build a better future for himself. He could have become a father, a husband, a leader, or someone who could have made significant contributions to his community. History is full of individuals who came from humble beginnings and went on to make transformative contributions to society. Such in the case of historical figures like Miriam Makeba, Thomas Sankara, Wangari Maathai who emerged from humble beginnings and ultimately made groundbreaking contributions.

If we were to dismiss the inherent worth of a life based on current circumstances alone, we risk silencing futures filled with promise. Countless advancements—in politics, science, literature, and social progress—might never have been realized if we judged a person’s worth by their social utility at a single point in time. This is said simply to underscore the importance of considering the potential impact of every life, not just those deemed more "valuable" by societal standards.

The Importance of Individual Worth

The lifeboat case challenges our understanding of morality around justice and individual rights. Our societies must evolve to recognize that every person's life has equal intrinsic value, regardless of their background, circumstances of birth, social status, religious affiliation, or contribution to society, and not simply uphold the calculation of consequences. While invoking "the greater good to justify actions" can highlight the importance of certain outcomes, it may also pave a way to justify acts that devalue human dignity. This could also be seen as a reason for ongoing wars around the world.

An empty lifeboat adrift on the water, symbolizing the moral dilemmas faced in the Lifeboat case.

Ultimately, justice must honor actions that recognizes the intrinsic worth of each person. Diversity in perspectives and contributions help us build a more just, peaceful, and rich society. It is vital to look beyond utilitarian calculations when assessing human life and instead commit to a framework that upholds individual rights, moral duties, and the wellbeing of all. Together, we must challenge societal norms that detract us from this truth.