While we're on the topic of morality, I thought it might be interesting to pose this dilemma.

4 men are shipwrecked and survive together on a life boat for fifteen days (they had food enough for about five). On the fifteenth day, things are looking grim, the inexperienced sailor, Parker, drank sea water which is commonly known to be fatal, and everyone had already resorted to drinking their own urine. The Captain, Dudley, and his mate, Stephens, bring up drawing straws to see who would sacrifice himself to be eaten. Brooks objects to this and they decide to hold off on it.

That night Stephens and Dudley decide to kill the comatose Parker in the morning. Brooks is not involved in this, but Stephens holds down Parkers legs as Dudley kills him with a pen knife. All three eat Parker and drink his blood (although its interesting to note that Stephens ate very little). A few days later while they're having "breakfast" they are rescued.

When they get back home, they are arrested and Brooks becomes a state witness. Dudley and Stephens are charged with murder and cannibalism. The two deny nothing that Brooks alleges but claim necessity as their defense. Both citing their families back home as reasons they needed to survive and carry on. Plus, Parker was going to die anyway, hell all of them would have died if they didn't eat or drink something, but Parker was sick off sea water.

Would you judge these two immorally wrong? Legally wrong? Are the extenuating circumstances great enough to excuse their behavior? Is murder murder, no matter what the circumstances?

I'd ask that you respond first before you find out the decision, or what others say if you don't already know. Or if you already know, do you agree with the outcome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_and_Stephens

 

-----signature-----

Man, talk about your cases that you'd hope to NEVER have to sit on.

 

-----signature-----

If he dies and they eat him no harm done... but they killed him that still counts as murder in my book.


Thats just my impression off what you posted dont know the case or the outcome.

Hmm...interesting...


Yes its murder and legally wrong. I dont think they deserve any serious punishment though.

There's a TED lecture I listened to yesterday that brought this up. My personal feeling is that its wrong and immoral but I would do it anyway. And if I would do it, how could I condemn it as immoral.

The lecture also started off with another dilemma: your a train conductor and the breaks cut out as you near the station. There are five workers on the track that don't see you barreling down on them. Horrified, you notice a service track you can turn off to, but on that track there is one worker there. What do you do? I think most people would take out the one guy to save the five.

So Dudley is the captain, he has a responsibility to his crew. Should he sacrifice the one two save the other two? Would he fail in his duty if he didn't take action to save the most crewmen he could?

Another way of looking at it is through the lens of war. We acknowledge murder is wrong, but allow the moral exception to that in war. If I'm stranded in a life-or-death situation, I'm going into a warrior mindset. Everything I can do to survive will be done. If it is not immoral to kill in war, is it immoral to kill in a situation similar?

All of this is balanced against the fact that Parker's life was never mine to take. I don't have the moral authority to decide whether he should die so the rest of us should live.

In my next post I will describe the outcome so if you haven't made up your mind yet, stop here.

 

-----signature-----

The court ruled that Dudley and Stephens were guilty in this landmark case. There were some other legal factors that came into play here (part of their legal defense relied on religious law precedents and martine codes that the British court did not acknowledge).

This judgement on this case is now the basis for the Common Law standard that necessity does not justify murder.

The two had a death sentence with a recommendation for mercy and ultimately the sentence was six months. Culture and politics played a large role in the commuting of the sentence (if I read that right).

 

-----signature-----

That sounds like a fair ending to the case. The murder issue is upheld yet they got an easy way out.

 

-----signature-----

Fubar

They should get an extra 10 years for failing to lie about it properly

It's like stealing a loaf of bread when you are starving. It is no less stealing and no less immoral just because you were starving. You have to make a choice, will you starve or will you commit an immoral act. When people try to rationalize away the immorality of an act based on need, you often find them start to apply a fast and loose definition of "need" in the future. This allows them to do whatever they want and still pretend like they are moral.

 

-----signature-----

I can accept that it is against the law, but I wouldn't say it was immoral. And I wouldn't vote to convict them either.

The will to survive is strong, and when you're desperate you do what you have to do.

In the end we're all still under the law of the jungle. Do whatever you can live with to survive.