Let me pose another hypothetical then, Allstar. This one was discussed in the TED talk too:

You're a doctor in the middle of the wilderness. Four deathly ill men stumble into your cabin, each needing an organ to survive. One a heart, another liver, one a kidney, one a lung. (or other vital organs if you want to ruin the hypothetical with "but you have two!"

A local also comes in for a small operation and is sedated in the back room. He happens to be a perfect match for all if the dying men. There is no other civilization around for hours or days, time these men simply do not have.

Do you sacrifice the one man in the back room to harvest his organs and save the four dying men? The dilemma has no way around it: either 4 men die, or 1 man dies.

If you answer no, what makes this scenario any different?

 

-----signature-----

I would let the 4 men die.

The man that came in has done nothing to cause the situation of the men, and he has no obligation to save them.

I am fine regardless of what happens to those 4 men. That is the difference to me.

If I had been on that boat with those men I'm not sure what I would decide to do. That is why I withhold judgement from them.

I would eat the guy who tasted more like bacon

Fair enough Allstar, thank you for your response.

 

-----signature-----

i find it interesting that they survived 15 days w/o water...so much that they were drinking urine and sea water


they were clearing dying of thirst yet somehow killing and eating one of them is some how going to save them?


it's a ridiculous premise all around


p.s. salt water and urine are both equally deadly after a certain period


a temporary insanity plea would have been a more believable defense

 

-----signature-----

If the local is a match, then the other 4 are matches for one another. Kill one of them and save the other 3. Leave the local alone.

 

-----signature-----

Early on they killed a tortoise and were drinking its blood until it got contaminated with sea water. The captain also had two tins of turnips. All this was gone by the 5th day though. It's truly a remarkable survival story, even with the murder and cannibalism.

Actually, wiki is giving me a slightly different account than what the lecturer told me.

According to wikipedia, they were shipwrecked on July 5th. They salvaged two cans of turnips and no fresh water. The captain split the turnips on the 7th. On the 9th they spotted the tortoise which lasted them, along with the turnips, until the 15th or 17th. They started drinking their own urine on the 13th. On the 20th, Parker fell sick from drinking the sea water.

They started talking about drawing lots on the 16th or 17th.
On the 24th or 25th, with Parker in a comba, Dudley killed him.

On the 29th they saw a sail.

 

-----signature-----

I would consider nothing they did out there as being under anyones jurisdiction. What happened in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

 

-----signature-----

Food has moisture (water) in it. HTH.

 

-----signature-----

Only reading the initial post, not guilty of murder. Manslaughter at the very worst, but I would even vote against that.
You cannot criminalize actions that are the only recourse for a person to save their own life.
Situation dictates, always, and this is a crappy situation. Its far better that one die and three live than all 4 to perish of hunger.
Not guilty of murder, put me on the jury.

 

-----signature-----