Write about Wallace, Seaman Holmes and the Longboat of the William Brown

Question

How does it relate to Utilitarianism and other philosophers we've discussed? Give your thoughts at the end.

Your Response Papers must consist of two paragraphs. THE WORD COUNT IS 700+
-In your first paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have carefully read the text assigned for that day, by explaining, in your own words, what is going on in a particular section of it. You can choose to write about one paragraph, or one page, from the text assigned for that day. You must include a brief quotation (or two) from the passage you are writing about, and you must indicate the quotation’s page number. Put the source [either Moral Life or Folio] and the page number, in brackets right after the quotation. i.e., ... “Some things are up to us, some are not up to us” (Moral Life, p.388). I will assume you are using the assigned Seventh Edition of the textbook. If you are using a previous edition of the textbook, indicate which version in your citation. Do not spend any time on biographical information about the philosopher.

-In the second paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have thought critically about this portion of the text by offering some sort of critical response to it (i.e. what you think about the ideas in this portion of the text, and why you think that). The second paragraph must be at least as long as or longer than the first paragraph. AGAIN, THE WORD COUNT IS OVER 700!!!!

Keep the wording simple and unprofessional

Answer 1

In the story of Wallace, Seaman Holmes, and the Longboat of the William Brown, we learn about a harrowing dilemma that these men faced while stranded at sea. The narrative unfolds as the crew of the William Brown is shipwrecked, leading to a desperate struggle for survival. With limited resources and the looming threat of starvation, the men are forced to contemplate the unthinkable: who would survive if rations run out completely? Wallace and Holmes find themselves in a moral quandary that asks whether it is acceptable to sacrifice one individual to save others. At one point, Wallace reflects, “The thought of killing him brought a shudder to my bones” (Folio, p.34), highlighting the emotional toll this dilemma takes on the men. The anguish of choosing between lives encapsulates the tension between utilitarian principles, which favor the greatest good for the maximum number, and individual moral duties. This event exemplifies the core utilitarian idea that actions should be gauged based on their outcomes, producing the most happiness or the least suffering for the most people. The crew’s debate is a microcosm of broader moral questions regarding the value of individual lives when weighed against the survival of the group.

Reflecting critically on this narrative, the situation of Wallace and Seaman Holmes raises significant questions about utilitarianism and moral philosophy in general. While utilitarianism might advocate for sacrificing one life to save many, this pragmatic approach risks dehumanizing individuals by reducing their worth to mere numbers. The emotional response that Wallace articulates shows that moral decision-making is not just a mathematical calculation of lives lost versus lives saved; it involves deep psychological and ethical dimensions. If we simply apply a utilitarian framework without considering these factors, we may make decisions that neglect the inherent value of each human life. The visceral reaction that Wallace experiences suggests that morality is not solely about outcomes, but also about the intentions and feelings of those involved in moral dilemmas. This aspect resonates with other philosophers we've discussed, like Kant, who assert the importance of respecting individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Ultimately, while utilitarian thinking can provide a useful lens for evaluating complex ethical dilemmas, the story of Wallace and Holmes compels us to remember the intricacies of human life that transcend cold calculations, nurturing a more compassionate, nuanced approach to ethics.