As usual, I'm late to this party. Nevertheless . . .
I suggest the best solution to the lifeboat problem is for the person who has the power or authority to decide the order of boarding ( "the Captain" )to make a selection based on the passengers value, as he is able to determine that. If he has a young Einstein or Ghandi, they get on the lifeboat first because they are the most valuable in his opinion. If a young Lizzie Bordon, although perhaps she she seems an attractive breeder, she would be among the last.
The Captain, like all of us is biased and has incomplete knowledge and insufficient wisdom to select by value accurately, and he is wise enough to recognize these limitations. He does have the power to enforce his selections, therefor not to do so would be, for him, immoral. It's absurd to select by any criterion other than anticipated future value. Value is, of course, subjective.
I'd just tell him, "Screw the lifeboats, it's all about sea turtles, mate!"
If you can't beat em*, confuse em...
*make no mistake, you can't beat em when the question is a loaded hypothetical with infinite possibilities for moving goal posts. i.e. you suggest women and children, they reply young Hitler is on board, etc. etc. ad infinitum et nauseum.
"The most moral of the people" by making this distinction you are negating the statement,
"all humans have the same value." This is clearly an untrue statement, but it makes you feel warm inside doesn't it? Also who would decide who is the most 'moral' and what would the criteria be... volunteer hours? Now I would like to add a #4 to that list - those most likely to survive, with the greatest strength (in every sort of way) and most useful skills, especially teamwork.
I would then be stuck between choice 1 and 4... but I think #1 is the one, why? If a boat is sinking I don't think you would have time to fuss over who is most deserving of a place on a lifeboat.