Visit our Popular Forums

**Adelie** · 27-08-2018, 14:40

This thread is a discussion of the morality of long distance singlehanding. The question of legality is a separate thread.

Pelagic · 27-08-2018, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adelie

So if I think it’s moral to kill people who disagree with me then it’s moral but illegal?

How about sex with a child? If somebody feels it’s moral does that make it so for them or is there community agreement that it is immoral?

It would be neither illegal or immoral to kill a person or group of people, if your social tribe agreed with you (think War)

Unfortunately, same with the use of children. Some societies place a very low bar on protecting children, disfiguring young girls genitalia as part of their "beliefs"

We have our own opinions about everything, which is ok, but trying to justify by using "value judgements" is silly

**Adelie** · 27-08-2018, 15:25

So then there is a place for community values in determining what is and isn’t moral.

Salty Fox · 27-08-2018, 16:06

I'm glad to see that you've come around to agree with my guidance on this subject. You are correct: morality can never be reduced to one thing. But you continue to confound morality and risk assessment.

Anyway, I think you might be losing your point in all of this. You asserted that single handing was immoral because anything the puts others at risk is immoral. And I explained why you were wrong in that particular line of logic. However, if you would like to make the point that single handing is reckless, or perhaps that moral frameworks are relative, you would not get an argument from me.

All of the examples you pose are laden with mitigating circumstance: exceptions for driving down the wrong side of the road because "the community" decides that flashing lights and sirens make the risk acceptable (despite the fact that emergency vehicles get in collisions every day); killing people who disagree with you is the very definition of war and criminal execution, so you're basically calling every serviceman and law-abiding citizen immoral; sex with a child really depends on how you define child--a person who reaches puberty is old enough to procreate at around 13, but their frontal lobes don't develop until 21, when they possess full brain development that is needed for logical, rational judgment--but we send 18 year olds to serve in the military, to sentences in prison, and 16 year olds can marry in most states, so which one is the child? The 13 year old? The 16 year old? The 18 year old? The 20 year old? If 21 isn't the absolute age of adulthood, why not? Who chooses?

Like I said, I'm glad that you have come to agree with my point that morality is not a single thing, and I hope that I have helped you understand the difference between morality and risk.

And here's a piece of advice: you need A LOT of authority if you're going to try to define morality for the global sailing community. It's the kind of argument that you can't win, but if you want to try, you should get your PhD first. ;-)

john61ct · 27-08-2018, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic

It would be neither illegal or immoral to kill a person or group of people, if your social tribe agreed with you (think War)

Excellent example. Both tribes and war are nearly always immoral.

Germans were all for invading Poland, thought they were completely justified morally.

Pelagic · 27-08-2018, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adelie

So then there is a place for community values in determining what is and isn’t moral.

Yes, but within the community of Solo Sailors, I think you would get a very biased sense of Values and arguments that they are inherently "better, more skillful sailors" and at far lessor risk than most crewed boats with weak links! [emoji4]

I ignore the morality judgements and instead look at the legality, risk factor and responsibility from my cockpit, .. Not Theirs!.

Whether it be a Solo sailor, stormed tossed fisherman, or an uprooted tree, I don't judge their right to be there, I just try to encourage my crew to keep a conscientious lookout on their watch, because those souls and dangers....are out there!

Sort of like keeping an eye out for children, who may not see the dangers around them.

**sailorchic34** · 27-08-2018, 17:09

Just a note that for a collision to happen, both boats would be in violation of the colregs.

Myself I find that the world contains all sorts of folks. The folks on the current golden globe race, and the single handed transpac of a month ago are two such events that are happening this year. I am more then happy to see such events and others who push the limits.

Not everyone is comfortable single handing. It is interesting that 1000's singlehand every year with few "issues". Seems there are far more crewed vessels colliding with each other then single handed collisions. Whats up with that.

On the same note, one could claim that it is morally wrong to speed in a car. Since speeding is breaking the law and puts people in increased danger. Yet nearly everyone speeds. Least wise in California.

DumnMad · 27-08-2018, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Just a note that for a collision to happen, both boats would be in violation of the colregs. ...................

On the same note, one could claim that it is morally wrong to speed in a car. Since speeding is breaking the law and puts people in increased danger. Yet nearly everyone speeds. Least wise in California.

Yes. And some solo car drivers run into and kill others without breaking the law. (Say when the victim runs a red light.) How moral is that

Salty Fox · 27-08-2018, 19:48

It's hard to find statistics about this. I found one table on maritime disasters in 2017, but it is obviously not comprehensive, and doesn't specify which (if any) involved solo craft.

I did find one report of a solo ketch that collided with a submarine in heavy fog in 1994. The single crewman was quickly rescued by the sub's crew, and the boat sank. In contrast, there are literally thousands of collisions and by other vessels with several crew aboard.

Might we infer that single handing is the ONLY moral option available to the sailing community? ;-)

**Adelie** · 27-08-2018, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salty Fox

I'm glad to see that you've come around to agree with my guidance on this subject. You are correct: morality can never be reduced to one thing. But you continue to confound morality and risk assessment.

Anyway, I think you might be losing your point in all of this. You asserted that single handing was immoral because anything the puts others at risk is immoral. And I explained why you were wrong in that particular line of logic. However, if you would like to make the point that single handing is reckless, or perhaps that moral frameworks are relative, you would not get an argument from me.

All of the examples you pose are laden with mitigating circumstance: exceptions for driving down the wrong side of the road because "the community" decides that flashing lights and sirens make the risk acceptable (despite the fact that emergency vehicles get in collisions every day); killing people who disagree with you is the very definition of war and criminal execution, so you're basically calling every serviceman and law-abiding citizen immoral; sex with a child really depends on how you define child--a person who reaches puberty is old enough to procreate at around 13, but their frontal lobes don't develop until 21, when they possess full brain development that is needed for logical, rational judgment--but we send 18 year olds to serve in the military, to sentences in prison, and 16 year olds can marry in most states, so which one is the child? The 13 year old? The 16 year old? The 18 year old? The 20 year old? If 21 isn't the absolute age of adulthood, why not? Who chooses?

Like I said, I'm glad that you have come to agree with my point that morality is not a single thing, and I hope that I have helped you understand the difference between morality and risk.

And here's a piece of advice: you need A LOT of authority if you're going to try to define morality for the global sailing community. It's the kind of argument that you can't win, but if you want to try, you should get your PhD first. ;-)

I'm not coming around to anybody's guidance on this subject, I didn't even notice you were part of the thread until just now. I was just poking my nose into this thread because someone was offering a facile definition of morality which made it easy to justify their position.

I have not actually offered an opinion on the root question of whether it is moral or immoral to singlehand for long passages and I don't intend to now.

Pelagic · 27-08-2018, 23:11

[QUOTE=sailorchic34;2706561]Just a note that for a collision to happen, both boats would be in violation of the colregs.
/QUOTE]

Perfect Sailorchic....That is exactly both the Crux of the matter as well as the answer!

You can only be responsible for your own actions at Sea.....
....the rest doesn't matter till the inquest!

**weavis** · 27-08-2018, 23:57

Im not sure morality can be defined by the group........
When a group defines morality, it is in effect dictating how to think and act.

........... dont kill people, unless its a war and on our side we absolve you of the moral nature and encourage and allow to kill......
........... dont take child brides, unless our religion dictates you can and then its ok.

Most Western morality is biblically based, and as the west loses its grip on Christianity, for example and without comment, Homosexual marriage, "morality" per se takes a back seat to personal desires and a new morality comes forward. The morality came from the group or religious adherence to scripture which changed as the adherence changed.

Laws are made which do not comply with standards of morality as seen by a group of people.

Col regs rule 5 is an attempt to use the caveat that you must observe at all times... its part common sense and part a RULE that is impossible to keep on vessels with few crew...... yet sailing per se is not confined by a moral law of a minimum of numbers to be permitted on a vessel whilst underway. The second a persons attention is taken by an event, and an accident comes from the other direction, the court WILL rule that you were not observing....... and that is incorrect. Its not morally correct....... but is a law.

Is it morally correct to drive your car into work whilst desperately tired from the sick child keeping you awake for 2 nights?

So... I did my first 4 day solo sailing recently. It was planned carefully and executed accordingly. I survived, normal sailing conditions all around and no person was harmed or came close to being harmed by me being there. I think the reality is that transatlantic solo sailors with good judgement regarding traffic would have found it a lot easier and could sleep for days and not encounter other vessels.

Mine was fairly coastal, but I found if I went out further, and having studied marinetraffic for 3 weeks prior, I could see the areas of low vessel proximity. My reality was that I could sleep for the time allocated and be refreshed to continue safely.. I had all the bells and whistles... RADAR, AIS other things etc, and also the profession Im in usually means I sleep in a fair conscious state of awareness and react to changes around me even whilst asleep.

So... is it morally wrong? WAs rule 5 violated? Is the intent to avoid incidents and keep a good awareness of what is happening around you? I would reckon that I knew EVERYTHING that was going on around me by the instrumentation because my eyes and ears would not have picked up due to the distance.

Naah......... solo sailing is a human right and if done correctly is safe.

I will solo from Cadiz to Mallorca next year........... that will be fun.

markpierce · 28-08-2018, 00:01

If it was illegal, wouldn't you think the authorities would prohibit lengthy, single-handed races.

It's not unknown that fishermen don't always keep a lookout, since they have been known to crash into the coast while everyone is asleep under autopilot.

**Wotname** · 28-08-2018, 00:56

Hmm... everything I have read / heard about morality has been delivered by humans. Whether it is defined by an individual, a group or a book, it has always been a product of human thought and it has never been absolute.

SH is no different.