The death of a total stranger for enough money to find a cure for AIDS.

[YoungSot]

What would you have done if you were the captain, and THE ONLY choices were have some people go overboard, or everyone die? No looking for other ways to save everyone. You already did that, and there arent any. What would you have done?

Err, I thought it was clear that I'm already assuming that in my previous reply, which is why I say that "there are two options" rather than saying "here are the two primary options" or something.

That still doesn't answer the question.

I would be unable to prevent us from dying without doing something morally wrong, so we would die. For further explaination, see my post from a little earlier.

[Nepycros]

There will always be a morally correct option, because one of the options will be the one that "should" be taken. If you can be in a situation where EVERY option is morally prohibited, then there must be a contradiction of some sort within your moral code. A set of moral rules that are logically impossible to obey is a useless set of rules.

So in this universe, there is an unbreakable law that states that morality, a subjective term, will always have a back door so that people can avoid being guilty of anything.
Charming.

In the given example there are two options:
1. Murder some people. This greatly increases the chance that others will survive. - Murder is morally wrong, therefore this is a morally wrong choice.
2. Do nothing. Everyone will most likely die. - There is nothing morally wrong with people dying in an accident. By itself this is not a morally wrong choice.

The captain has the direct power to prevent deaths. He has more than enough reason to protect innocent lives. Him not doing so is morally wrong because he could have deprived more people the right to live than was necessary. You don't seem to understand the necessity of some humans dying (from what I observe) so that others may live, you simply see death as an unavoidable and regular part of any situation, and thus has no real impact, and trying to prevent it isn't as large an issue as some make it out to be... You're wrong (in my opinion). Preventing death is the most important thing to do, in my opinion.

Allowing others to die is morally wrong IF you have the option to save them (otherwise you are not "allowing" them to die at all, they are just dying). However, if the only option that allows you to save them is in itself morally wrong, then it's not really an option from a moral standpoint, and thus you have no option to save them, and are no more responsible for their deaths than you are responsible for the death of a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver. Put in another way: saying that "you are morally required (not physically required, morally required) to make an immoral choice" would mean an illogical and impossible set of morals.

The captain is obligated to protect the lives of his passengers, as far as I understand. So, he's actually not doing his duty, by standing by indifferently as the people he was entitled to protect die off. I would hold him accountable. It's really not up to the universe to decide what is morally wrong and right: it's up to us. We should be able to realize that what he did SAVED lives. Yes, he murdered, but if murder is just 'another means to die' then he was left with the following:

Let 21 people die (I think that's the number in the scenario)
or have 7 people die.

Every human life has a potential of its own. Depriving ANY potentials is wrong, but depriving ALL potentials is worse.

[OldTrees]

There will always be a morally correct option, because one of the options will be the one that "should" be taken. If you can be in a situation where EVERY option is morally prohibited, then there must be a contradiction of some sort within your moral code. A set of moral rules that are logically impossible to obey is a useless set of rules.

So in this universe, there is an unbreakable law that states that morality, a subjective term, will always have a back door so that people can avoid being guilty of anything.
Charming.

In this universe, there is an unbreakable law of logic that states that the best option will be the option that is best. There cannot be a choice where 1 or more options are not the best option(s).

This is completely different from the strawman you presented which used the same letters to symbolize "the option I/You/We/They think is best".

Instead YoungSot is claiming two things
1) In this universe, there is an unbreakable law of logic that states that the best option will be the option that is best. There cannot be a choice where 1 or more options are not the best option(s).
2) Any man made guideline or set of guidelines that comes to the conclusion that there is a choice where no option(s) is/are the best option(s)  is logically inconsistent.

(The above concept that is being symbolized by Morality when the letters "Morality" is used by Youngsot is akin to the claim below)
If you have a set of sums, one or more of those sums will have the highest total of all the sums. The only set of sums where no sum or sums exist as the highest would be the null set.

[Nepycros]

There will always be a morally correct option, because one of the options will be the one that "should" be taken. If you can be in a situation where EVERY option is morally prohibited, then there must be a contradiction of some sort within your moral code. A set of moral rules that are logically impossible to obey is a useless set of rules.

So in this universe, there is an unbreakable law that states that morality, a subjective term, will always have a back door so that people can avoid being guilty of anything.
Charming.

In this universe, there is an unbreakable law of logic that states that the best option will be the option that is best. There cannot be a choice where 1 or more options are not the best option(s).

This is completely different from the strawman you presented which used the same letters to symbolize "the option I/You/We/They think is best".

The entire point of this debate is to figure out which choice is the best one. Youngsot seems to believe it's whichever one puts the least blood on somebody's hands.

[Camoninja]

You're not actively killing either one, but you're (to me, more than the other) responsible if the one person dies for the cure. The others would die anyway, Most of the others would have treatment to prolong their lives so they might live for the cure, so I would choose to deny the offer.

[YoungSot]

There will always be a morally correct option, because one of the options will be the one that "should" be taken. If you can be in a situation where EVERY option is morally prohibited, then there must be a contradiction of some sort within your moral code. A set of moral rules that are logically impossible to obey is a useless set of rules.

So in this universe, there is an unbreakable law that states that morality, a subjective term, will always have a back door so that people can avoid being guilty of anything.
Charming.

No. Morality defines what choice we "ought" to take, and any moral decision will have a morally correct answer. In your case you think that the captain "ought" to pursue the path that will lead to the most total lives saved, even if it means murder. We both agree that there is a morally correct choice to take, we just disagree as to WHICH of the choices is the morally correct one.

In the given example there are two options:
1. Murder some people. This greatly increases the chance that others will survive. - Murder is morally wrong, therefore this is a morally wrong choice.
2. Do nothing. Everyone will most likely die. - There is nothing morally wrong with people dying in an accident. By itself this is not a morally wrong choice.

The captain has the direct power to prevent deaths. He has more than enough reason to protect innocent lives. Him not doing so is morally wrong because he could have deprived more people the right to live than was necessary. You don't seem to understand the necessity of some humans dying (from what I observe) so that others may live, you simply see death as an unavoidable and regular part of any situation, and thus has no real impact, and trying to prevent it isn't as large an issue as some make it out to be... You're wrong (in my opinion). Preventing death is the most important thing to do, in my opinion.

And I believe that being moral is more important than being alive.
So we're not likely to come to the same conclusions with such extremely different starting assumptions.

Allowing others to die is morally wrong IF you have the option to save them (otherwise you are not "allowing" them to die at all, they are just dying). However, if the only option that allows you to save them is in itself morally wrong, then it's not really an option from a moral standpoint, and thus you have no option to save them, and are no more responsible for their deaths than you are responsible for the death of a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver. Put in another way: saying that "you are morally required (not physically required, morally required) to make an immoral choice" would mean an illogical and impossible set of morals.

The captain is obligated to protect the lives of his passengers, as far as I understand. So, he's actually not doing his duty, by standing by indifferently as the people he was entitled to protect die off. I would hold him accountable. It's really not up to the universe to decide what is morally wrong and right: it's up to us. We should be able to realize that what he did SAVED lives. Yes, he murdered, but if murder is just 'another means to die' then he was left with the following:

Let 21 people die (I think that's the number in the scenario)
or have 7 people die.

Every human life has a potential of its own. Depriving ANY potentials is wrong, but depriving ALL potentials is worse.

I otoh believe that some things are right or wrong, even if all of humanity thought otherwise.
I suspect there may not be much purpose in arguing further between just the two of us, but if something in my line of reasoning still doesn't make sense to you given my starting assumptions, then ofc feel free to point it out.

[Belthus]

Think about this wrinkle. Let's say that the captain knows exactly what the carrying capacity of the lifeboat is. He adds the weight of each person as he or she enters, and the limit is reached after the 14th person enters. A 15th person is desperately trying to scramble aboard. #15 is told that the boat will sink if he enters, but he persists anyway. Is it morally correct for the captain and his crew to block the 15th person from entering the lifeboat?

Suppose that despite these efforts, the 15th person does get on board. Is it morally correct for the captain and crew to throw #15 overboard? Keep in mind that #15 was told that his presence would doom the entire lifeboat. If you think it's OK to keep him from entering, does his successful entry change your moral assessment of the situation?

[Nepycros]

No. He is willingly endangering the lives of people around him for his own selfish gain. I would by all means prevent him from getting on board. Intentionally trying to make others suffer for a fool's desperate grasp at life is no bargain.

[Rastafla]

I would kill the random person without thinking twice. Even if the being in question was a liar and would kill someone close to me or even myself, (i had the time to donate the money and whoever i gave it to would complete the cure).

"The needs of the many outweighs the need of the few or the one." To me there is no morality or ethics, not really. Death means nothing to me as it is, i came from nothing and im going back to nothing. People and living matter live and die all the time and the billions upon billions of people who could have existed but never have due to assumed random chance of the universe gives evidence that life means nothing. What exist exist, and thats that. I'm extremely lucky to be alive and able to enjoy my senses and for that I'm happy, not grateful just happy and lucky.

[Nepycros]

I see humans having a value based on their potential. Extending the amount of time they're alive increases the chance they'll reach their potential, so I'd gladly save many over one. More possible potential gain, after all.

[YoungSot]

Think about this wrinkle. Let's say that the captain knows exactly what the carrying capacity of the lifeboat is. He adds the weight of each person as he or she enters, and the limit is reached after the 14th person enters. A 15th person is desperately trying to scramble aboard. #15 is told that the boat will sink if he enters, but he persists anyway. Is it morally correct for the captain and his crew to block the 15th person from entering the lifeboat?

Suppose that despite these efforts, the 15th person does get on board. Is it morally correct for the captain and crew to throw #15 overboard? Keep in mind that #15 was told that his presence would doom the entire lifeboat. If you think it's OK to keep him from entering, does his successful entry change your moral assessment of the situation?

Hmm. That brings to mind another element to this discussion; Is it implied that by sailing on this ship, the passengers have agreed to the risks and danger? That would potentially cast things in a different light, as it is arguably not murder to throw someone overboard if they agreed to such a possibility beforehand. It's a good wrinkle, but I can't take anymore time out of work to think about it, so if someone hasn't answered it by then, I'll be back in a few hours to try and iron it out.

[johannhowitzer]

A captain is manning a lifeboat filled with too many people after his ship sank. In order to save some of them, rather than have everyone drown, he makes the weaker ones go overboard. When his passengers were finally rescued some time later, they tried him for murder. If he had not let anyone go overboard, and ended up having everyone die from the lifeboat's sinking, he'd be an innocent man.

This example does not apply to this discussion, since everyone involved is going to die - including the ones the captain forced to leave the lifeboat.  There is no exchange here - we've been talking about saving lives at the cost of others.  There is no cost when the lives lost would have been lost anyway if nothing was done.  The same applies to a baby who can only be born at the cost of both its own life and that of its mother.

You're not describing an exception, you're describing a part of the rules themselves.