In absence of applicable regulations I think the veil of ignorance of sorts can help here. Would the shipowner make the same decision were he or his family one of the emigrants? What if it was some precious irreplaceable cargo on it? What if it was regular cargo but not fully insured? If the decision without the veil is significantly difference from the one with, then one can consider him “verily guilty”, without worrying about his thoughts overmuch.
Well, yes, I agree, but I’m not sure how that helps.
We’re now replacing facts about his thoughts (which the story provides us) with speculations about what he might have done in various possible worlds (which seem reasonably easy to infer, either from what we’re told about his thoughts, or from our experience with human nature, but are hardly directly observable).
I don’t think they are pure speculations. This is not the shipowner’s first launch, so the speculations over possible worlds can be approximated by observations over past decisions.
But I guess I’m still in the same place: this narrative is telling us the shipowner’s thoughts. I’m judging the shipowner accordingly.
That being said, if we insist on instead judging a similar case where we lack that knowledge… yeah, I dunno. What conclusion would you arrive at from a Rawlsian analysis and does it differ from a common-sense imputation of motive? I mean, in general, “someone credibly suggested the ship might be unseaworthy and Sam took no steps to investigate that possibility” sounds like negligence to me even in the absence of Rawlsian analysis.
In absence of applicable regulations I think the veil of ignorance of sorts can help here. Would the shipowner make the same decision were he or his family one of the emigrants? What if it was some precious irreplaceable cargo on it? What if it was regular cargo but not fully insured? If the decision without the veil is significantly difference from the one with, then one can consider him “verily guilty”, without worrying about his thoughts overmuch.
Well, yes, I agree, but I’m not sure how that helps.
We’re now replacing facts about his thoughts (which the story provides us) with speculations about what he might have done in various possible worlds (which seem reasonably easy to infer, either from what we’re told about his thoughts, or from our experience with human nature, but are hardly directly observable).
How does this improve matters?
I don’t think they are pure speculations. This is not the shipowner’s first launch, so the speculations over possible worlds can be approximated by observations over past decisions.
(nods) As I say, reasonably easy to infer.
But I guess I’m still in the same place: this narrative is telling us the shipowner’s thoughts.
I’m judging the shipowner accordingly.
That being said, if we insist on instead judging a similar case where we lack that knowledge… yeah, I dunno. What conclusion would you arrive at from a Rawlsian analysis and does it differ from a common-sense imputation of motive? I mean, in general, “someone credibly suggested the ship might be unseaworthy and Sam took no steps to investigate that possibility” sounds like negligence to me even in the absence of Rawlsian analysis.