Probably because it is grisly and appeals to horror fans, this case has been debated ad nauseam, in mock court proceeding, in philosophy classes, in law schools and in popular culture, with the American equivalent being the awful Donner Party tale. Of course it is a classic ethical conflict, with multiple ethical principles dictating opposite responses. Kant’s absolutist principles argue that murder is never ethically justified, including murder to save or benefit the live of a more powerful human being (Hello, abortion!). Utilitarianism, in contrast, argues that an unethical act that prevents a greater wrong (or leads to a greater good) is, in fact ethical. An online poll of Harvard students and alums that reopened the The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case and asked what the most “moral and ethical” decision for Captain Dudley split this way:

59% voted that the Captain should have waited until someone in the boat died naturally and have the survivors eat him.

20.3% votes that the group “draw lots” to see who would be dinner.

17.9%—the weenie vote, and boy would I love to see the demographics on this one—said that they should have killed and eaten no one and just hope for the best.

Only 2.5% agreed that killing the cabin boy was the most ethical course.

Ugh. It is things like this that make me feel like I am wasting my time. All that debate since 1884, and that’s the best that Harvard types can come up with?

To begin my analysis, I will state up front that this is classic ethics zugzwang: you have to do something, doing nothing is irresponsible (so 17.9% are ethics dunces and don’t know it), but whatever you do can be legitimately called unethical. Well, too bad: the Ethics Alarms nostrum in such situations is fix the problem. Be proactive. Show courage, try to eliminate bias, and do the best you can under terrible circumstances without counting on moral luck to bail you out.

That analysis not only eliminates the weenie “hope you get rescued” punt and the majority’s “wait until someone dies of natural causes virtue signaling. That answer is also a punt: let “fate” solve the problem. “Fate” can’t be counted on to solve the problem. Wait too long to make a decision, and everyone may be too weak to survive. Or someone in the boat snaps and decided to take matters into his own hands. Insisting on ideal solutions that are unlikely or impossible is itself unethical: that’s another ethical problem-solving principle Ethics Alarms hold dear.

Those two principles: do something to address the problem and not to allow the unachievable perfect to preclude a practical solution, frames the problem. There is no “most ethical solution.” There are only unethical solutions, and the only completely indefensible decision is not to choose one. The poll didn’t help by not including key options.

Any of these, in my view, are ethical enough, beginning with the assumption that the Captain is the leader, and its his decision to make.

1. Call for a volunteer. Give everyone a chance to be noble, a hero, and lunch. Maybe the cabin boy will surprise you.

2. The Captain volunteers himself. If his skills in navigation and leadership are critical to getting the boat rescued, then this choice has to be off the table. As the leader, however, he has the greater ethical obligation to do what is in everyone’s best interest.

3. Eat the cabin boy. If, as everyone claimed, Parker was already ill and indeed the weakest, and if the decision to devour him was based on that calculation and not on class, then the actual decision was ethical, and no criminal charges should have been made.

4. Draw lots. Personally, I hate this option, because it avoids a tough decision that should be made based on considering what maximizes the chances of survival. It is, however, superficially fair, especially when the leader doesn’t have the guts or ethics skills to come up with a better solution.