The Lifeboat Hypothetical

Professor Eric Rasmusen is inviting discussion on this "lifeboat hypothetical":

A lifeboat will hold 5 people without sinking in the next storm (an inevitable one), but 6 are in it. All will die unless one is thrown out.

1. Should law and morals allow one person to voluntarily and unilaterally jump overboard and die?

2. Should they be allowed to agree unanimously to draw straws and use a gun to kill one person? (kill, because after he finds he has the short straw he changes his mind)

3. Suppose we know they would all have agreed, but they don’t actually have the discussion. Instead, one of them, a very honest person, draws a straw for each of them. If he had the short straw, he would have killed himself, but he is lucky and Sam has the short straw. He then shoots Sam with the gun and they thrown Sam overboard. Is that OK?

4. Suppose they have a discussion, and they and we know that everyone *would* agree to the scheme if it was a choice between all 6 drawing straws and all of them dying. Sam, however, says: “I won’t agree. I know that even if I hold out, the other 5 of you will do a 5-straw scheme and one of you will go overboard and the rest of us will be saved. So I’m opting out.” Is it OK to include him in the straw scheme anyway, against his will?

5. Suppose that they have a discussion and Sam sincerely says he is opting out because even if his opting out would sink the boat, he doesn’t want to have any chance of being thrown overboard now instead of dying in 30 minutes when the storm hits. And in fact if he doesn’t agree, the resulting bickering will prevent even a 5-straw scheme. Is it OK to include him in the straw scheme anyway, against his will?

Thoughts?  (My quick-take is to say "yes" or "maybe" to (1), but "no" to (2)-(5).)