This is a concurring opinion to court case Regina v. Dudley & Stephens
using Natural Law Theory
On July 5, 1884, Captain Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, and Brooks, both able bodied seamen, and a seventeen year old cabin boy, Richard Parker, were aboard a yacht 1600 miles into the sea. A storm forced them onto an open boat where they were stranded for twenty-five days. While aboard they had no fresh water and nothing but two tins of turnips to eat, until the fourth day when they feasted on a small turtle; they lived on its remains until the twelfth day. For eight days after they had no food and scarce rain water to drink. On the eighteenth day, Stephens and Dudley spoke with Brooks about the need to sacrifice someone for there to be a chance for the others to live. Brooks refused to take part. The cabin, who had been boy targeted, at this point lay helpless after consuming seawater and spending days with no food. On the 25th of July, with Stephens’ consent, Dudley put a knife to the boy’s throat and killed him. All three men fed upon his flesh and blood for the following four days. On the fourth day after the act was committed they were rescued and committed to trial for murder at Exeter.
The issues at hand are: whether cases of extreme necessity are enough to justify murder; and in these extreme cases should self-sacrifice or self-preservation prevail. The prisoners, Stephens and Dudley, argued that had they not sacrificed the boy, who was the most likely to die of the three, they would not have survived; and that at the time of the killing there was no reasonable hope for salvation. The jurors found there to be no greater necessity to kill the boy over the other men. The court held that despite the extremities of the situation, Dudley and Stephens were guilty of murder.
Because of the extremities within this case, it is difficult to see the right and wrong in it. There are few things that need to be determined: what exactly is murder? How can it, if ever, be justified? If upholding the intent to preserve life is sought out by the court, whose life is it that must be preserved? What defines a case of true necessity? And even if this necessity is true, it is enough to justify the killing of an innocent boy?
Despite the complexity behind all these questions, the truth is there it must simply be discovered. I am not deciding the outcome of this case because it is already decided. I am simply aiding in the emergence of the truth behind this altercation, for which there is need of nothing but reason to do so. The truth is there, one must just be trained to be able to find it in cases with such extremities as this.
To begin, the definition of murder must be made clear. Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. In itself this only further complicates the situation, for who is to decide if a murder is justifiable or not? Certain justifications include self-defense or the defense of a third party, necessity, and self-preservation. This is no case of self-defense. The boy was in a weakened state, posed no threat, and was in no position to defend himself.
On the contrary, he was completely vulnerable and therefore made a victim to this crime. The two men preyed on an innocent, helpless boy in order to selfishly preserve their own corpses. In terms of necessity, which these two claim is their defense, there really was no greater necessity in killing him over the others present. “Laws were made that in fear thereof human audacity might be held in check, that innocence might be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm” (Aquinas, 70). The two men should have considered the consequences of their actions before committing the crime.
A true necessary cause would be a situation where there really was no other choice but to kill the boy, but there were other choices, here they merely failed to consider them. Altruistic deeds of self-sacrifice were an option and taking this option would have spared these men their conviction.
Even at its most extreme, if one were to consider Parker’s killing a true necessity for the others’ well-being, this does not make it a justifiable murder. This justification simply opens the door to legitimizing other acts of immoral behavior. This would make it just for those in poverty to steal and it would justify other acts of deceit or tricky done in order to better oneself or one’s family. Though it may seem convenient for the individual it does not serve the common good of a society and is therefore considered to be unreasonable.
“Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters: but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not as to a common genus or species but as to a common final cause” (Aquinas, 59). Court decisions are supposed to provide the public with examples of how to live (Aristotle). What standards of morality and justice would be set, should this gruesome act of murder go unpunished? This would leave an ambiguous distinction between right and wrong or moral and immoral behavior. It would allow any claim of necessity a chance of justification, and this could be the cause to future disastrous behaviors.
Cases of true necessity are those where there is really no other option. Situations where it really is either the life of one or the other, for instance if two bodies were dependent on one lifeline, when it could only withstand the weight of one: here there is true need of making this decision. One must die in order for the other to live. Both are doomed to die if the line were to snap, and it can be seen that it truly is about to break. There is no doubt in this scenario or room for other possibilities, unlike the assumption of Parker’s life expectancy in this case of murder.
While deciding whose life to sacrifice, the men came up with an idea of drawing lots to see who would be killed for the rest to survive. If the group had actually gone through with this choice, there may have been some support in their favor. It would not seem like those in better health were taking advantage of the sick and needy. It would have been a morbid drawing, but fair for all those in the group. This did not occur, so this does not apply to this situation.
Dudley and Stephens argued Parker had no family to return home to or nobody depending on his homecoming and that of the four men Parker was the most likely to die because of his weakened condition. On the contrary, one could argue the latter and say that it is because of his youth and lack of life experiences that he should have been spared and given the chance to fulfill his life expectancy. The others on board were full grown and should have been more considerate and behaved more humanely when deciding the fate of Parker.
Also, his weakened state called for acts of compassion. It should not have been seen as an opportunity to take advantage of his underprivileged condition. In any other case, if a man in full health were to murder a sick, disabled minor, there would be no controversy. It would simply be seen as murder, and this is the case here. The murder of this boy was unnecessary and wrong and should be dealt with accordingly. “One class of just actions consists of those acts, in accordance with any virtue, which are ordained by law… Further when a man voluntarily does an injury (not in retaliation) that is against the law, he commits injustice” (Aristotle, 26).
Dudley and Stephens took such extreme courses of action under the assumption there was no hope of being rescued. This is a contradiction within itself and thus a faulty argument. If there truly was no hope in being rescued, then there really was no necessity in killing Parker to live longer. With this assumption, all they did was prolong their own suffering and eventual demise. This is unreasonable, masochistic, and erroneous. Also, the two men said because of Parker’s state of being he was doomed to die eventually. This would be a legitimate substantiation, if it were possible to know exactly how long it was before his death. In this case, if they knew his death was truly pending anyway, sacrificing anyone else would simply double the amount of casualties. Here, there would have been true necessity in order to save everyone else. The killing of the boy would then have been both reasonable and for the greater good, but this is impossible to know for certain and is therefore not applicable.
Furthermore, the court has an obligation to protect and this is an absolute function (Hobbes). This brings about a conundrum for this case where the act of killing Parker was intended to save the others, yet the act of killing in itself is the very opposite of preserving the life of the boy. This information leads to neither the support nor condemnation of the two accused, so other obligations must be considered.
Laws are intended to lead to proper virtue, and since virtue is that which makes its subject good, it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good (Aquinas, 64). In this situation, the death of Parker in no way makes Dudley and Stephens good men. Their acts possess no characteristics of a good person or of virtuous intent. “The law directs man in his actions. But human actions are concerned with particular matters. Therefore the law is directed to some particular good” (Aquinas, 58). They acted upon desperation with no consideration for the well-being of the boy and with intents to only better their situation.
There is a body of universal values and principles which must be upheld. This makes the right true regardless of where you are, who else is in your company, or the situation you are in. In this case we have two conflicting values at hand: self-sacrifice and self-preservation. But there are also moral obligations that should be considered here. Amongst the duties and responsibilities of the captain of the ship, did Dudley not have a priority of watching over those aboard his ship? Should he not have volunteered to sacrifice himself to save the others instead of taking the life of an innocent boy? Did anybody on board even give thought to a scenario where self fulfillment would occur in the act of helping the others?
Despite the extremities of the case and the claims of necessity, reason, morality, and conscience should have played a major role when these men chose their courses of action.
Self-denial is the highest virtue, and is one that even the most noble of men would have a difficult time achieving. Here, this is exactly what is proven: man in the most unimaginable conditions is weak and drops the course of virtuous deeds and instead pursues a path of self-indulgence, to the extent of drinking the blood of his neighbor for his own survival. Acts of cannibalism in any other situation are unacceptable, and here in this case as well. These men were put through a test of temptation and strength, and failed. Men are thought to be reasonable creatures and are expected to exercise the will to do the right thing and this exercise is a result of the presence of mind and conscience (Cicero, 44). Dudley and Stephens did not. Survival was all they could think of and even though it was not an unanimous or fair decision to murder the boy, they did it.
Exactly what is to be expected of the average man under such horrendous conditions? They were losing hope of survival, dreary from loss of nutrition, in the brink of delirium because of the lack of water, experiencing the emergence of their true animal instinct. Still, standards of perfection are set for the decorum of a man in these conditions. He is still expected to act civil and virtuously. “By reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of life or taketh away the means of preserving the same” (Hobbes, 110). Unlike Dudley and Stephens, who found a solution at the expense of another’s demise and took it. They should now suffer the consequences of their course of action.
Because they have a conscience, both men should have been able to distinguish what was right from wrong. Though there is conflict with what appears to the senses and what really is. In this case, Dudley and Stephens did not see things as they really were. They did not see the sick boy as a person in need of help. They saw what appeared to their senses: a means to the end of their hunger. They looked past ailing boy and saw a solution to cease their own suffering.
Humans are unable to get away from thinking morally because these values are implanted in their independent conscience. It is an innate instinct to always consider the consequences and the right in wrong of the situations in which they find themselves. This further establishes that they should have been able to act accordingly to what is expected from mankind. In nature, mankind is superior to other animals and it is because of this fact that it makes sense to expect them to behave with more self-control and not indulge in an animal’s instincts of survival.
This court’s ruling is just and therefore should be upheld. This assures no possibility in the future of the public assuming they could utilize the excuse of necessity in order to get away with murder, or any other immoral. These cruel acts of murdering a young boy in poor health, choosing self-preservation over self-sacrifice, and the monstrous act of cannibalism will not go unpunished and will never be justifiable in this civilized nation. It is this courts intents to make certain of this.
Altruistic intents will always be paramount to self-preservation within the walls of the court. The court is asking men to reach standards of faultlessness in behavior in the worse probable scenario, but merely in order to prevent cases which are not as severe from using the same excuse successfully. These are standards that nobody may ever truly reach, but still reasonable by means of virtue, conscious, and morality. These characteristics are embedded in the conscience of each person, and therefore asking for them to be upheld is not unreasonable. Again, it may be the most difficult task imaginable to succeed in doing so, but it is not impossible. It is because of this that all holding in this court will stay as decided and not be undermined.
No comments:
Post a Comment