Quote (duffman316 @ May 28 2021 12:05am)
if you were the judge deciding the case of r v dudley stephens (1884) what would your ruling be?
"The following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Dudley and Stephens silently signalled to each other that Parker would be killed. Killing Parker before his natural death would mean blood to drink. Brooks, who had not been party to the earlier discussion, claimed to have signalled neither assent nor protest. Dudley always insisted that Brooks had assented. Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife into Parker's jugular vein, killing him.[13]"
This, to me, is what would push that from acceptable to unacceptable, i.e. murder. If they had all agreed to draw lots and killed one after drawing them or if somebody had sacrificed themselves, then I would say it was a dire situation but not something necessarily immoral.
In ther same wiki article it has
Saint Christopher case
In the early 17th century, seven Englishmen in the Caribbean embarked on an overnight voyage from Saint Christopher Island, but were blown out to sea and lost for 17 days. During this time, starving, they cast lots to see who would sacrifice his own life for the others. The lot fell to the man who had suggested the scheme, and he consented to his subsequent killing. His body sustained the rest until they made their way to Saint Martin. They were returned to Saint Christopher where they were put on trial for homicide. The judge pardoned them, their crime being "washed away" by "inevitable necessity".
Which outlines this. I don't disagree with the rationale.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.