When keeping the questions that we asked in class in mind, I believe that Dudley and Stephens are guilty. The boy never had the choice or a say in the matter. I believe that if they would have confronted the boy with the option it would have been ok, but because the boy didn't have a say in it, so I think that is the deciding element as to whether or not they are guilty. The fact of the matter is that they took someone elses life against their will. They chose to do so and so they must live with the consequences. It is better to be in jail than dead, and they took that option.
I feel that Dudley and Stepehens did what they had to do to survive and it was the right thing. They chose the weakest one of the four, and then killed and ate him. There will to survive was great enough to survive and they did. If it is acceptable to push someone off a board to save yourself, in-turn killing the other person then this is no different, this concept is no different because you are killing someone for your own survival. Using Bentham's theory, they also did the right thing because it brought the greater pleasure to the greater amount of people. So what they didn't ask him if he would sacrifice himself for the three of them but the boy didn't even struggle when they told him he was going to die. It wasn't the most morally sound action but they did what they had to do to survive therefore making it acceptable in this situation.
Yes, Dudley and Stevens were starving and needed food, but they knew the boy was sick. If they would have waited a bit longer, I'm sure he would have died anyway and then they could eat him. If they thought he wasn't going to die off quick enough, they could've confronted him and the boy might have been noble about it. I think no matter what it's still wrong to eat a human, dead or alive. Whether they killed the boy or not, I would assume that they probably had something wrong with them anyway to be able to eat a human, even if it was just to survive. Abby J, I disagree, I think it would be much worse to be in jail the rest of your life than to be dead. People are miserable in jail and it lasts forever. Being dead is just being gone forever, but you feel no pain when you're dead.
3 comments:
When keeping the questions that we asked in class in mind, I believe that Dudley and Stephens are guilty. The boy never had the choice or a say in the matter. I believe that if they would have confronted the boy with the option it would have been ok, but because the boy didn't have a say in it, so I think that is the deciding element as to whether or not they are guilty. The fact of the matter is that they took someone elses life against their will. They chose to do so and so they must live with the consequences. It is better to be in jail than dead, and they took that option.
I feel that Dudley and Stepehens did what they had to do to survive and it was the right thing. They chose the weakest one of the four, and then killed and ate him. There will to survive was great enough to survive and they did. If it is acceptable to push someone off a board to save yourself, in-turn killing the other person then this is no different, this concept is no different because you are killing someone for your own survival. Using Bentham's theory, they also did the right thing because it brought the greater pleasure to the greater amount of people. So what they didn't ask him if he would sacrifice himself for the three of them but the boy didn't even struggle when they told him he was going to die. It wasn't the most morally sound action but they did what they had to do to survive therefore making it acceptable in this situation.
Yes, Dudley and Stevens were starving and needed food, but they knew the boy was sick. If they would have waited a bit longer, I'm sure he would have died anyway and then they could eat him. If they thought he wasn't going to die off quick enough, they could've confronted him and the boy might have been noble about it. I think no matter what it's still wrong to eat a human, dead or alive. Whether they killed the boy or not, I would assume that they probably had something wrong with them anyway to be able to eat a human, even if it was just to survive. Abby J, I disagree, I think it would be much worse to be in jail the rest of your life than to be dead. People are miserable in jail and it lasts forever. Being dead is just being gone forever, but you feel no pain when you're dead.
Post a Comment