3 ms·

Currently: both. The owners obviously. The local authorities through inaction. My point is there's functionally no difference (and arguably, one which benefit

by ethbr1 2y ago

Currently: both. The owners obviously. The local authorities through inaction. My point is there's functionally no difference (and arguably, one which benefits the owners) by stranding crew on abandoned ships. Either way you're left with an abandoned ship. So why not avoid the human tragedy?

lazide 2y ago
All I can say is, you have no idea what marooning is if you think the local authorities are the ones doing it. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning] Doing what you propose just creates a huge moral hazard, and would result in even more of this kind of BS on their doorstep.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  So your moral system is fine with leaving a person on a ship, unpaid, and with no way to get home... to avoid moral hazard to shipowners? That seems like a serious devaluing of human life. An abstract goal isn't a justification for a concrete ill.
  - lazide 2y ago
    What does my moral system have to do with it? Or yours? Are you a taxpayer in any of the jurisdictions involved? Do you own any of these boats? Are you going to fly over there and solve this problem yourself individually? Near as I can tell, you’re just moralizing about how other people should solve the problems created by the ship owners without doing anything to actually solve the problem, and with no skin in the game. Same as me, of course. But I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the folks with skin in the game. It’s easy to be high and mighty when it isn’t your actual problem, and you don’t have to pay for it.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      That's one thing if you're, say, Saudi Arabia and don't particularly care about human rights. Different matter in countries that generally try to be more decent to people... ... but in this case (per your reasoning) are looking the other way past human suffering to make sure that shipowners don't have more incentive to dump boats. I'm saying "That's a shitty moral justification for causing human suffering." Are you saying you think it's a good one, per your personal opinion? Or that you don't, but it doesn't matter because you're not a minister of transportation?

by ethbr1 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

All I can say is, you have no idea what marooning is if you think the local authorities are the ones doing it. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooning] Doing what you propose just creates a huge moral hazard, and would result in even more of this kind of BS on their doorstep.

ethbr1 2y ago
So your moral system is fine with leaving a person on a ship, unpaid, and with no way to get home... to avoid moral hazard to shipowners? That seems like a serious devaluing of human life. An abstract goal isn't a justification for a concrete ill.
- lazide 2y ago
  What does my moral system have to do with it? Or yours? Are you a taxpayer in any of the jurisdictions involved? Do you own any of these boats? Are you going to fly over there and solve this problem yourself individually? Near as I can tell, you’re just moralizing about how other people should solve the problems created by the ship owners without doing anything to actually solve the problem, and with no skin in the game. Same as me, of course. But I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the folks with skin in the game. It’s easy to be high and mighty when it isn’t your actual problem, and you don’t have to pay for it.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    That's one thing if you're, say, Saudi Arabia and don't particularly care about human rights. Different matter in countries that generally try to be more decent to people... ... but in this case (per your reasoning) are looking the other way past human suffering to make sure that shipowners don't have more incentive to dump boats. I'm saying "That's a shitty moral justification for causing human suffering." Are you saying you think it's a good one, per your personal opinion? Or that you don't, but it doesn't matter because you're not a minister of transportation?