Here are parts of my thirdage blog from yesterday. What is your opinion of Costa Concordia behavior of captain and evacuees who pushed past children? Is Chivalry Dead? Based on the behavior of Costa Concordia’s Captain Francesco Schettino, and others on board the doomed ship, is chivalry dead? Thankfully for Italians, their national image has been saved by the conduct of Coast Guard Captain Gregorio De Falco. By now most of us have heard the recording of the conversation in which De Falco quite forcefully orders Schettino to get back on the ship to help with rescue efforts. What was the “right” thing to do? Michael Murphy, national vice president of government relations for the largest union of merchant marine officers in the United States, has said he considers it a mortal sin that Schettino fled the Costa Concordia after it capsized. But maritime lawyer Bob Jarvis said on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” that it is a misconception, a romantic notion, that a captain is expected to go down with the ship. And what happened to the chivalric code of getting women and children off a sinking boat first? With medieval historic roots, chivalry as we think of it was popularized in the 19th century as an idealization of British manhood, one aspect of which was to rescue the weaker sex (ultimately in order to maintain a patriarchal society). Our ideal of chivalry at sea became The Titanic, with male passengers giving their lives so that women and children could be saved (only 20 percent of the men survived as opposed to 75 percent of the women and over 50 percent of the children). Also, the Captain and other crew did go down with the ship. Before the Victorian era, however, it was normal for men to save themselves a la Darwin’s survival of the fittest. Is chivalry dead? Every man, woman, and child for themselves? Pesonally, I don't think so. I have read so many accounts of courageous men rescuing women, children, and pets in distress that I think the feeling of wanting to protect others lingers still in our menfolk -- at least here in the U.S.
Chivalry is not dead enough...The idea of chivalry might sound great...but the "protection" ideal is fundamentally based on an idea of inequality, that women *need* protecting and help because they are weak. I agree that this ideal has persisted among men in the U.S. but it isn't so much about saving the women and children as it is being manly and masculine...In a disaster situation, perhaps these codes of honor are beneficial, but the 99% of the rest of the time, they aren't. And I'm sure most modern men wouldn't sacrifice their life for strangers, no matter the sex or age...it is one thing to help someone in need, even putting yourself at risk to do so, but very different to stand aside and die out of a sense of "honor". As for the Captain going down with the ship...he shouldn't need to. Modern ships are designed to have enough lifeboats for everyone...but it is the Captain's duty to ensure evacuation happens properly. Clearly, this man didn't do his job...I don't believe he *had* to go down with the ship, but he was the one responsible for the safety of the passengers and crew...I view this the same as a police officer that flees from an armed criminal for fear of his own safety, letting the public die instead of doing his duty; they put themselves before the responsibility they had already committed to. So, yeah, absolutely this is a case of manslaughter. But this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with chivalry. It's about the practicability of managing a ship at sea, whereas chivalry is more about a code of honor...It simply is not safe to have the Captain jump ship first as a matter of logistics and practicality. He is needed to co-ordinate the evacuation. All this anger is justified in my opinion; if he didn't want to risk his life to protect his passengers in an emergency situation *his* incompetence created, he should have jumped off the ship before they even left port, chivalry or not...
There's no implication that a captain must go down with his or her ship, btw; just that a captain is obligated to lead or help facilitate rescue efforts. But yes, chivalry was tied to all things patriarchal and it is not a code one would want in all aspects of life. But in an emergency situation, I do think it is the right thing to get women and children off first.
And I'm not so sure...this is a very strange ethical statement in a way. I can understand prioritizing the lives of children...but doesn't it seem a little weird to say that men should die instead of women? Why? Because they are the strong ones better equipped to handle death? For some reason they deserve it more than females? Men are somehow better in an emergency? I don't think so at all. It isn't a comfortable idea to really talk about, but equality means not drawing lines in the sand like this, where it is okay to accept gender inequality during emergencies or when it is beneficial, but otherwise it is some mortal sin. I suppose I don't understand the ethical justification for this idea that men should give up their lives for the womenfolk. The question remains: why? The lives of men and women are worth the same...aren't they?
To answer the main question; yes, the Captain should be the last one off the ship (whether it is sinking or not). He or she is, by definition, the incident commander and needs to be directing the rescue efforts. That being said, if the ship is sinking and has been evacuated he should not remain aboard the ship so as to maintain command of the incident (there may or may not have been a complete evacuation of the ship but the incident commander is still needed for recovery operations). An example of this would be what happened on 9/11; the incident command center was stationed on the main floor of one of the towers (tower 1, I believe). When the building collapsed, the entire incident command structure was obliterated; without the command the response was heavily compromised. Okay, all that aside; moving to the discussion of importance of men, women and children. It was pointed out that the concept of saving women and children first more or less came about in the Victorian era; I would suggest that it existed well before then. From an anthropology view, the idea of protecting women and children probably existed way back into the tribal ages (when men were the hunters and women the gatherers, or so the general line of thought has been). Why this came about is a subject of debate, but generally men have greater upper body strength than most women do and men were the protectors of their children and mate (considering the lack of birth control, the woman may be pregnant a great deal of the time...and life expectancy was fairly low back then). Sadly, in the intervening years cultures developed that place less importance on women and children (some still exist to this date) and have subjugated them as merely property. Thankfully most developed nations have moved away from the property stance and toward equability. I would like to think that men still feel a protectiveness toward women and children; I only have myself and my friends to really judge this by, though news articles would tend to show different at times (can't help but feel a bit of anger when I read of women and children being abused). Anyhow, that is my seventeen cents worth.
Recall the example USAir Captain "Sully" Sullenberger set - walk through the plans twice to make certain all passengers are off.
In my opinion, there are good reasons why captains "should" be the last to leave ship. First of all, it might encourage them to stay on safer waters. And secondly, it's the captain who should supervise and give orders in case of emergency. And how can he do that if he's not on the ship? ____________ currently working with: kirjanpito Lahti
I suppose I don't understand the ethical justification for this idea that men should give up their lives for the womenfolk.