Costa Concordia: Did the captain break any law in abandoning ship?

3. Is there a moral standard governing captains' behavior?

In a solemn scene in the movie Titanic, the captain stands alone in the control room, holding the wheel as water comes crashing in on him. He goes down with his sinking ship, a romantically tragic image that has spanned history and literature for centuries and reinforced the idea of this maritime tradition.

Though abandoning ship may not break a legally binding regulation, some say codes of ethics and honor render Captain Schettino’s behavior unacceptable.

“The captain certainly has a moral responsibility to be [the last on board]. In some sense, the moral responsibility takes precedence over legal responsibility,” says Palmiotti, who has worked in the maritime field for more than 30 years.

Many crew members did stay aboard the sinking Costa Concordia, and said later that it was important for their self-respect, and conscience.

"I could have saved myself and not done my duty, but I didn't. I waited and helped get at least 300 people on lifeboats," said Ciro Iosso, an electrician on the ship, reports Reuters.

The origins of maritime evacuation priorities have changed over the years, notes Robin Miskolcze, author of "Women and Children First: 19th -Century Sea Narratives and American Identity." She writes that in the late 1700s, it was widely believed that God decided who survived shipwrecks. This translated to men climbing over anyone standing between them and safety, reports Slate. As new views took hold during the Enlightenment, news reports became critical of men who survived shipwrecks in which female passengers died.  For centuries to follow, "women and children first" became the standard cry. That practice was also reportedly overlooked during the recent ship evacuation off the Italian coast, reports the Daily Mail.

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.