A lifeboat in 1884 and a data scandal in 2023. Two questions about what is acceptable that no chart can settle, and what a good answer sounds like when it cannot be proved.
← Who Knew, and When? · The whole pathway · Is it right…? — the quick guide · Name It, Think It, Say It →
Ten items. Say your answer out loud before you reveal it.
Read the sentence, guess the meaning of the word in bold, then reveal.
Three terms: a slippery slope · a grey area · the lesser evil. Say the right one, then reveal.
One missing word fits every phrase in the group. Say it, then reveal.
Read each part. After it, answer the quick check from memory, then discuss one question. The figures are rounded, and the facts are as the cases were reported.
You may have met this case in Four Men in a Boat. This time, look at it through the lens.
In May 1884 a yacht called the Mignonette left Southampton for Sydney, sold to an Australian buyer and being delivered by a crew of four: Tom Dudley, the captain; Edwin Stephens, the mate; Edmund Brooks, an able seaman; and Richard Parker, the cabin boy, who was seventeen and on his first ocean voyage. On 5 July, roughly two thousand kilometres from land, a wave took out her side and she sank in minutes. The four got away in a thirteen-foot dinghy with two tins of turnips and no fresh water.
They caught a turtle on the fourth day. After that there was nothing. They drank rainwater when it came and their own urine when it did not. By the eighteenth day they had eaten nothing for a week, and Richard Parker, who had drunk seawater against the others’ warnings, was lying in the bottom of the boat and was not expected to live.
On 25 July, after Dudley and Stephens had discussed it and Brooks had refused to take part, Dudley killed the boy. The three fed on his body. Four days later a passing German ship picked them up. When they reached England they told the story openly to the customs officers at Falmouth, because in the world they came from, it was not a secret: it was the custom of the sea.
1. What were the four men doing, and how did the boat sink?
2. What was the condition of Richard Parker before 25 July?
3. Why did the men tell their story openly when they reached England?
1. They were delivering a yacht from Southampton to Sydney. A wave took out its side roughly two thousand kilometres from land, and it sank in minutes.
2. He had drunk seawater against the others’ warnings and was lying in the bottom of the boat, not expected to live.
3. Because among seafarers what they had done was a known and widely tolerated practice in extremity, the custom of the sea. They expected to be understood, not prosecuted.
You may have met this case in Four Men in a Boat and A Therapist in Your Pocket. This time, look at it through the lens.
The Home Office decided to prosecute, though public sympathy ran with the men and a fund was raised for their defence. Brooks, who had taken no part, appeared as a witness. Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. Because a jury was likely to acquit, the judge directed the jury to state only the facts it found proved, leaving five judges to decide whether those facts amounted to murder. The facts were stark and generous to the men: that they would probably not have survived had they not acted, that the boy would probably have died first anyway, and that at the time there was no reasonable prospect of rescue. On 9 December 1884 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, delivered the judgment: necessity was no defence to murder.
A century and a half later, a different question about what is acceptable arrived at a company with no lifeboat. Online therapy platforms grew quickly, and in 2020 demand exploded when clinics closed. They offered care within days instead of months, at a fraction of clinic prices, and for many users it worked. In March 2023 the US Federal Trade Commission announced action against one of them, BetterHelp. It found that the platform had shared users’ health information, including email addresses, IP addresses and answers from the intake questionnaire, with advertising platforms such as Facebook and Snapchat, to target ads, despite promises of confidentiality.
The settlement was modest in money, 7.8 million dollars, returned to users in the regulator’s first-ever refund for mishandled health data, and large in precedent: the intake form, the most sensitive document in the funnel, had been treated as marketing data. The company admitted no wrongdoing and called the practices industry-standard. Investigators suggested that this was uncomfortably accurate, since researchers found trackers throughout the mental-health app sector.
1. What did the jury have to do, and why was it arranged that way?
2. What was the court’s answer on 9 December 1884?
3. What did the regulator find in 2023, and what did the company say?
1. State only the facts it found proved. A jury was likely to acquit out of sympathy, so the arrangement left the legal question to five judges.
2. That necessity was no defence to murder.
3. That the platform had shared users’ health information, including intake answers, with advertisers despite promises of confidentiality. The company admitted no wrongdoing and called its practices industry-standard.
Neither of these questions can be settled by a chart or a calculation. They ask what is right, not what works, and the lens is different. It does not lead to a recommendation of the kind in earlier lessons. It leads to a position, with the principle behind it and the limit you accept, or to an honest statement of exactly what your answer depends on.
Who is affected, and who decides? In the lifeboat: the boy, the two men, Brooks, and, through the precedent, every crew afterwards. The court decided. In the data case: users at some of the hardest moments of their lives, the therapists, the company and the advertisers. The regulator decided, and the users did not. Which principles pull against each other? Survival and the rule that no one may decide another’s death; access and low prices and confidentiality. Would I accept this rule if it applied to me? Would I accept a rule that lets the strongest decide who suffers? Would I accept my own intake form being used to find customers? What can I not know? Whether the boy would have died, and whether any user was actually harmed. Those are facts. The rest is values.
The lens then asks for a position, not a shrug. On balance I would say not, because… and I would make an exception only if… If your answer depends on something, say exactly what: It turns on whether users were told, and on who could see the data. That is not a way of avoiding the question. It is the most precise answer you can give.
1. What is different about the lens for a question of what is right?
2. What is the difference between a fact you do not know and a value you disagree about?
3. What should you say if your answer depends on something?
1. It does not lead to a calculation or a recommended action. It leads to a position with its principle and limit, or to an honest statement of what the answer depends on.
2. A fact you do not know can in principle be found out (whether the boy would have died). A value you disagree about cannot be settled by facts (how to weigh survival against a rule).
3. Say exactly what it depends on, for example whether users were told, and who could see the data, and give your position on each side.
A “Is it right…?” question asks about fairness or what is acceptable, and the earlier lenses run out here. No test or calculation can settle it. What you can do is say who is affected, which principles pull against each other, whether you would accept the rule yourself, and what you cannot know. Then say a position, and be honest about its limit.
Each is a spoken answer to a question about what is acceptable. What kind of answer is it? Choose, then check.
1. A position with its principle — it gives a clear position and the principle (confidentiality) behind it.
2. A shrug — it takes no position and names nothing the answer depends on.
3. A position with a limit — it says yes and sets two clear limits.
4. It depends on X — it names exactly what the answer depends on and gives a position on each side.
5. A position with its principle — it applies the reversal test and states the principle.
6. A position with a limit — it says yes and names the exception.
7. A shrug — it avoids a position and does not say what would help to decide.
Principles can be used as costumes. A principle chosen because it gives the answer you wanted is not a principle. Ask: would I use it if it pointed the other way?
Missing facts are not missing values. Some disagreements dissolve when someone finds a fact. Others do not. Say which kind you are in.
‘It depends’ is not an answer until you say on what. The honest version names the condition and gives a position for each side of it.
A position on what is right is most credible when it states its limits. This language lets you hold a view firmly, qualify it precisely, and judge what people did or should have done.
Use each word from the box once: on · all · extent · principle.
1. the face of it, the decision looks fair, but the facts are incomplete.
2. else being equal, I would tell the patient the truth.
3. The company is responsible to the that it knew about the risk.
4. In , consent is required; in practice, it is rarely asked.
1. On — on the face of it
2. All — all else being equal
3. extent — to the extent that
4. principle — in principle… in practice…
Write the verb in brackets in the correct form, with the modal. Use the whole phrase.
1. The company (should / tell) users that their data was shared.
2. The regulator (ought / act) sooner.
3. Nobody (should / force) to make a choice like that.
4. They (should / not / hide) the problem from the families.
1. should have told — the right thing was not done
2. ought to have acted — same meaning as should have
3. should have been forced — passive: should have been forced
4. shouldn’t have hidden — the wrong thing was done
Now give a position on a question about what is right, in four sentences: say your position, the principle behind it, the limit you accept, and what you cannot know.
Say a position, give its principle and limit, and say what you cannot know. Choose a task, start the timer, and talk.
Choose one: Is it acceptable to tell a patient only part of the truth? Is it fair to dismiss someone for a mistake the system allowed? Should a company use customers’ private data to improve a free service? Give your position, the principle, the limit, and one fact you cannot know.
Pick a rule or practice you think is acceptable. Apply it to yourself: would you accept it if it were applied to you? Say what you find, and whether it changes your view.
Your partner says: “It depends.” Ask: “On what?” and push until they give a precise condition and a position on each side. Then swap.