No need to recap the much-repeated plot. I'm not sure which came first this movie or the "Lifeboat Paradox" used as illustration in many college courses in ethics. What the lifeboat situation sets up so starkly is the clash between two prevalent theories of right and wrong. These two are worth taking a brief look at since their conflict makes up the crux of this intense melodrama. <br /><br />Ty Power ends up opting for a Utilitarian standard where the aim of correct conduct is to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This standard okays sacrificing some in order to save others in circumstances where all other alternatives would result in less 'good' for a fewer number of people. Under the desperate circumstances, Power is approximating that standard by sacrificing those least likely to survive in order to save those most likely to survive, while the 'good' to be maximized is individual survival. The classic objection to this theory is that it can justify sacrificing the innocent in order to bring about a 'greater good', whatever good or value that might be. Here the weak and the injured are cast adrift through no fault of their own, and it's this aspect that's so repugnant to ordinary sensibilities, such as the professor's. <br /><br />But, it's well to keep in mind that a Utilitarian standard is used all the time when making life-and-death decisions in wartime. So-called "collateral damage", for example, amounts to a rough utilitarian calculus applied during bombing campaigns where civilian casualties are inevitable. What's so unnerving in the movie is that unlike bombing campaigns we can put names and faces on those sacrificed, which is why Power is advised not to get too familiar with the others.<br /><br />This utilitarian theory conflicts with a second theory, the more conventional Egalitarian standard, which holds that all human life is of equal value. On a strict application of equality, no person should be sacrificed for the benefit of another, and when human life is held as the supreme value, some version of pacifism would appear the logical conclusion. Without viewing the film a second time, Stephen Boyd's character, I believe, comes closest to acting out a consistent Egalitarian standard since he refuses to sacrifice another without sacrificing himself. <br /><br />(In passingMoira Lister's sardonic young woman appears to admire Power's strength of character simply for his strength and not for whether he's made the morally right decision. Suggesting that strength of character is in some sense more basic than right and wrong points toward the amoralism of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.)<br /><br />Anyway, the survivors, including Power, begin the ordeal by holding to presumably some conventional form of egalitarianism. But under the pressure of circumstance, they give in to Power's conversion to a utilitarian view of the situation. However, when rescue comes and the pressure is off, they revert back to convention, leaving Power to take the heat and deal with the law. This suggests that Power may end up being something of a martyr to their survival. After all, the law, at least as we proclaim it, reflects an egalitarian standard (everyone is equal before the law), and on that basis Power is guilty in some sense of a crime since he has valued some lives over that of others. Nonetheless, has Power done anything more blameworthy than, say, a bomber pilot who kills x-number of civilians in utilitarian pursuit of the greater good of winning the war. We pin medals on the latter, but the former, we're informed, was jailed for six months.<br /><br />I suspect the movie is correct in suggesting that under normal circumstances people identify with the more idealistic equality standard. But in severe conditions, we're likely drawn in a more pragmatic utilitarian direction. Nonetheless, the two really do clash at a fairly basic level. Whatever one's opinion on these matters, the film dramatizes the academic issues pretty effectively.<br /><br />The movie itself offers little relief from the dire predicament the survivors are in. It's pretty much 90 minutes of harrowing grimness. I can't imagine the contents made money, at the same time I think it's a tribute to the producers that the film got made at all. As sheer entertainment, the film's value may be questionable, but as a prompt for getting audiences to think about questions of right and wrong, I believe it succeeds admirably.