"Geben Sie mir Kaffee, dann mache ich Phänomenologie daraus." (Give me my coffee so that I can make phenomenology out of it.)
-- Edmund Husserl
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What Would You Do: The Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens
After reviewing the case, please give your argument for why or why not the men are guilty for having killed and consumed their shipmate. Please make your case before objecting to others or answering objections.
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.
I believe that Dudley and Stephens are innocent. It was said that the boy was in a much weaker condition then Dudley and Stephens. If they chose not to kill the boy then they would have died a few days later, before the boat would have spotted them to come to their rescue. In class we talked about Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number and in this case by the two men killing the boy there was more lives being saved than lost. Although we are not able to judge who's life was more important and who had more to lose, Dudley and Stephens made the correct choice by killing the weakest link to be able to survive starvation. And they are innocent because there is a greater good for the greatest number.
I think that because the assent of the boy was never given in a way such as “I think that whoever is closest to dying should be put to death to give the others another chance, including me,” they went against a 17-18 year-old boy’s will. They could have killed him even if he was doing just as well as the rest of them, he just would have been easier to gang up on. We can’t actually know. Like the document mentions, what if the boat never showed, or it came into view 15 minutes later? The one thing I do disagree with is how these men are charged. Abby, you said, '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.’ But that is exactly what I have a problem with. "The court then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon the prisoners." If the boy is dead anyway, why let him die in vain? Just make those men pay the boy’s family. Although this will not fully consol them, it is better than his life gone and the men’s’ lives who took it with the purpose of surviving dead in the end anyway.
After reviewing the case and giving it much thought I still am very unsure on what my opinion would be. I am very glad that I was not a on the jury of this case and hopefully I’ll never be in that situation. With the case that we are examining there are many questions that are brought up and that is why I’m not sure which side to take. I believe that the men are both guilty but at the same time not guilty but in a court of law that opinion would be completely valueless. I feel that the men are guilty of the murder with that reasons being that although the young man was very sickly and allegedly near death, it should have been a group decision and he should have had the option to sacrifice himself instead of being attacked. On the other hand with my beliefs of they are not guilty of murder is that they were at sea for many days without food, they waited until they had no other options and sacrificed one person for the survival of many. Bentham’s principle of Ultitariasm is a perfect example of this situation, the greatest good for the most people. That one young man being sacrificed saved the lives of multiple men who lived and eventually made it back to their families. Although the young man sacrificed never saw his family again a greater number was able to see theirs.
I believe that Dudley and Stephens are not guilty. They did what was necessary in order for themselves and their third shipmate to survive. If we look at this situation using Utilitarianism, the death of the 17-18 year old boy provided the greatest good for the greatest number. The sacrifice of the weakest shipmate saved the lives of the other three shipmates. Today in class, Mr. Nicholson asked us, "Does it matter that the boy was the weakest?" I believe that it does in fact matter that he was the weakest because if the boy was as close to dying as the other shipmates said, in a way they put him out of his misery. Also in the reading, it said that the boy did not struggle or resist whatsoever. I believe this shows that he may possibly been ok (to a certain extent) with them sacrificing him to save the other three.
In my opinion, the behavior of Dudley and Stephens were wrong, because they did kill the boy and ate his body instead of ate the boy’s body after he died naturally. Killing a human is wrong no matter what the reason is. Although Dudley and Stephens’ purpose was to make more people survive, there is no way to measure the value of one living-being and four living-beings. Even the young boy is the youngest and weakest, he might also survive at the end if no one killed him. However, what they did was the best choice for this situation. They paid the least numbers of living to safe the most numbers of living which can relate to the idea of consequentialism---“the ends justify the means”. So even they were wrong, they still did the best way to face this situation.
In my opinion what Dudley and Stephens did to their shipmate was mere will to survive. Being in that place of desperateness their will to survive led them to kill the weakest one of them. This could been seen in a couple different ways, for example, they ended his suffering by killing him, and by killing him they guaranteed at least a few more days of survival. On one hand they both are guilty of committing murder but under the circumstances they were, this is in the middle of the ocean on a little vessel and with no water or food, to ensure their survival they had to commit murder. Obviously some arguments based on human rights are at hand but on my personal point of view, the two seamen did what they had to do in order to survive.
In agreement with Collins, “The prisoners were in circumstances where no assistance could be given. The essence of the crime of murder is intention and here the intention of the prisoners was only to preserve their lives…” I believe that Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens only took Richard Parker’s life on their desperate need of food along with the pain Parker was suffering from famine. It is evident in this story that Richard Parker was the weakest man in the dilemma and had no chance to safe himself from being killed. This story is based around a life or death situation where the men were going to do anything to stay alive even if it meant to kill. Putting myself into the scenario I would have acted just as Dudley and Stephens did by protecting themselves to make sure they made it out of sea alive. All you have in this situation is your own life and you must protect that, it is your necessity to stay alive and experience life. If your life is a necessity than it is obviously necessary to kill and survive off of Parker’s body. I also think that all people are necessary to society, however, in Parker’s situation when he is at such a weak point in health and lost at sea it is not necessary for his life.
First of all, I think it is wrong to kill someone under any circumstances. Secondly, it is morally wrong to judge that one people’s life is worth less than two other people’s lives. I think human life is invaluable for each human being. We talked about that even a human himself or herself cannot end up their lives by their own (such as commit suicide). So I consider this case a murder because nobody should or can weight lives.
Xu, you state that it is morally wrong to judge that one person’s life is worth less than two other people’s lives, however, don’t you think that Parker being the weakest person lost at sea makes him less worthy to stay alive? I guess what I am trying to ask is since killing is the only way to preserver in life throughout this situation doesn’t it make sense to kill the weakest?
I don't agree with what Yuxiao said in her comment. We couldn't apply consequentialism to this case because this case could be ended in various ways. What if another boat passed by their boat right after they killed the boy? Then the action would be totally unnecessary and the boy would die for nothing.
I deem that Dudley and Stephens are guilty because they killed the weakest boy who is innocent in order to make their own survive. Everyone has their rights to survive and no one is allowed to take someone else’s life away. What they did is against that boy’s rights. However, in that situation, I totally understand their positions and their feelings. They have been starved for a long time. The boy was sick and it seemed that he was going to die. I think if they could make sure that he was going to die, it would be ok to eat him. Otherwise, they could not just make the decision regard other people’s rights and life, or they may wait him to die and then eat him….but they were not able to wait that long.. Nevertheless, they are not innocent, because they do not have the rights to violate other’s rights of life. From the other side, by measuring the value of each consequence: all members die or one die and the other three live, it seems that the second one is much more acceptable because at least, some people survive and a dying person die. But, is it ok to judge people’s life by the value? I mean that every life is important so it is wrong to have that incorrect concept.
Murdering a person is unacceptable most of the time, unless if there are reasonable causes to it. In this case, they, Dudley and Brooks, shouldn’t be guilty of murder. What they did was in act of necessity, because they did not know if the help would come at any time soon. H. James, lawyer for the Crown, states, “his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defense,” which I don’t think is true because of the pressure of necessity, which A. Collins, lawyer for the prisoners, explained. Being in hunger for 8 days and thirst for 5 days is very painful and mentally impacting. It will affect their brain to work differently. In Foundation of Health class, we watched a video which explained what human’s brain will adapt to when they are in crisis. The man was stranded in ocean with no food, but he was able to catch fish. For a while, he only ate the flesh of those fishes, but as time passed, his brain changed and craved him to eat the eyes and intestines in order to take in minerals he needed. His brain made him to enjoy those parts. Their brain would have had changed as the situation became worse that they made decisions they wouldn’t make normally. So the fact that they were in grave situation mattered and because they would have died if they did not killed the boy. Also it doesn’t matter that they were rescued because they were rescued four days later, which means that they would have died if they didn’t make up their decision. Pressure of necessity, hunger, and brain science affected their decision. I believe that almost anyone who experiences same thing will make the same choice. I disagree with Yuxiao’s statement, “Killing a human is wrong no matter what the reason is.” My understanding of her statement is “they should all die painfully, because killing another human is wrong.” Considering Bentham’s Utilitarism, Dudley and brook’s decision was the best thing they could have done. In conclusion, I find them not guilty.
Even though I find them not guilty, I don't think boy being the weakest made a difference. Because he was weak for famine. If someone else was sacrificed, then he would have recover from it, even though he was the weakest. Unless he had problems in his body other than famine, the fact that he was the weakest doesn't make a difference.
I feel that Dudley and Stephens are guilty for what they did. Just because they didn't have any food or water, it doesn't mean that they were allowed to take an innocent life away. Based on the law in the society they were living in, the law stated that "where a private person acting upon his own judgment takes the life of a fellow creature, his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defense or self defense against the acts of the person whose life is taken." Because the kid wasn't even fighting back, they murdered him. They didn’t even give him a chance to live and they just decided to kill the boy. Even as they were killing the weak, innocent, and sick boy; they told him that his time has come and stabbed him in the throat. This is not a great act and they should be punished for it. Even though they needed food to survive, they should of gone fishing or should have just waited until they got rescued the next day. They deserve to get punished and be placed in jail forever.
In my opinion Dudley and Stephens are guilty of murder. I strongly believe that no matter what the circumstances are murder is murder. In this case Dudley and Stephens killed a boy that may have had a chance at survival. The unknowns to this situation were numerous. Dudley and Stephens could have come across a boat two hours after the killed the boy and he still could have remained alive. As I stated before though murder is murder no matter what lies in your way. As Cam and others stated Utilitarianism says that you can or should do the greatest good for the greatest number. Although in this situation I am going to say that statement is false because they killed a young boy. In that situation they could have killed the boy and never found help and they could have all died. In my opinion I would rather keep everyone alive and hope for the best, because the rules on land still apply on water.
19 comments:
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.
I believe that Dudley and Stephens are innocent. It was said that the boy was in a much weaker condition then Dudley and Stephens. If they chose not to kill the boy then they would have died a few days later, before the boat would have spotted them to come to their rescue. In class we talked about Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number and in this case by the two men killing the boy there was more lives being saved than lost. Although we are not able to judge who's life was more important and who had more to lose, Dudley and Stephens made the correct choice by killing the weakest link to be able to survive starvation. And they are innocent because there is a greater good for the greatest number.
I think that because the assent of the boy was never given in a way such as “I think that whoever is closest to dying should be put to death to give the others another chance, including me,” they went against a 17-18 year-old boy’s will. They could have killed him even if he was doing just as well as the rest of them, he just would have been easier to gang up on. We can’t actually know. Like the document mentions, what if the boat never showed, or it came into view 15 minutes later?
The one thing I do disagree with is how these men are charged. Abby, you said, '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.’ But that is exactly what I have a problem with. "The court then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon the prisoners." If the boy is dead anyway, why let him die in vain? Just make those men pay the boy’s family. Although this will not fully consol them, it is better than his life gone and the men’s’ lives who took it with the purpose of surviving dead in the end anyway.
Sorry Abby Vanhorn, I meant Abby on the fist post on the other link.
After reviewing the case and giving it much thought I still am very unsure on what my opinion would be. I am very glad that I was not a on the jury of this case and hopefully I’ll never be in that situation. With the case that we are examining there are many questions that are brought up and that is why I’m not sure which side to take. I believe that the men are both guilty but at the same time not guilty but in a court of law that opinion would be completely valueless. I feel that the men are guilty of the murder with that reasons being that although the young man was very sickly and allegedly near death, it should have been a group decision and he should have had the option to sacrifice himself instead of being attacked. On the other hand with my beliefs of they are not guilty of murder is that they were at sea for many days without food, they waited until they had no other options and sacrificed one person for the survival of many. Bentham’s principle of Ultitariasm is a perfect example of this situation, the greatest good for the most people. That one young man being sacrificed saved the lives of multiple men who lived and eventually made it back to their families. Although the young man sacrificed never saw his family again a greater number was able to see theirs.
I believe that Dudley and Stephens are not guilty. They did what was necessary in order for themselves and their third shipmate to survive. If we look at this situation using Utilitarianism, the death of the 17-18 year old boy provided the greatest good for the greatest number. The sacrifice of the weakest shipmate saved the lives of the other three shipmates.
Today in class, Mr. Nicholson asked us, "Does it matter that the boy was the weakest?" I believe that it does in fact matter that he was the weakest because if the boy was as close to dying as the other shipmates said, in a way they put him out of his misery. Also in the reading, it said that the boy did not struggle or resist whatsoever. I believe this shows that he may possibly been ok (to a certain extent) with them sacrificing him to save the other three.
In my opinion, the behavior of Dudley and Stephens were wrong, because they did kill the boy and ate his body instead of ate the boy’s body after he died naturally. Killing a human is wrong no matter what the reason is. Although Dudley and Stephens’ purpose was to make more people survive, there is no way to measure the value of one living-being and four living-beings. Even the young boy is the youngest and weakest, he might also survive at the end if no one killed him. However, what they did was the best choice for this situation. They paid the least numbers of living to safe the most numbers of living which can relate to the idea of consequentialism---“the ends justify the means”. So even they were wrong, they still did the best way to face this situation.
In my opinion what Dudley and Stephens did to their shipmate was mere will to survive. Being in that place of desperateness their will to survive led them to kill the weakest one of them. This could been seen in a couple different ways, for example, they ended his suffering by killing him, and by killing him they guaranteed at least a few more days of survival. On one hand they both are guilty of committing murder but under the circumstances they were, this is in the middle of the ocean on a little vessel and with no water or food, to ensure their survival they had to commit murder. Obviously some arguments based on human rights are at hand but on my personal point of view, the two seamen did what they had to do in order to survive.
In agreement with Collins, “The prisoners were in circumstances where no assistance could be given. The essence of the crime of murder is intention and here the intention of the prisoners was only to preserve their lives…” I believe that Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens only took Richard Parker’s life on their desperate need of food along with the pain Parker was suffering from famine. It is evident in this story that Richard Parker was the weakest man in the dilemma and had no chance to safe himself from being killed. This story is based around a life or death situation where the men were going to do anything to stay alive even if it meant to kill. Putting myself into the scenario I would have acted just as Dudley and Stephens did by protecting themselves to make sure they made it out of sea alive. All you have in this situation is your own life and you must protect that, it is your necessity to stay alive and experience life. If your life is a necessity than it is obviously necessary to kill and survive off of Parker’s body. I also think that all people are necessary to society, however, in Parker’s situation when he is at such a weak point in health and lost at sea it is not necessary for his life.
First of all, I think it is wrong to kill someone under any circumstances. Secondly, it is morally wrong to judge that one people’s life is worth less than two other people’s lives. I think human life is invaluable for each human being. We talked about that even a human himself or herself cannot end up their lives by their own (such as commit suicide). So I consider this case a murder because nobody should or can weight lives.
Xu, you state that it is morally wrong to judge that one person’s life is worth less than two other people’s lives, however, don’t you think that Parker being the weakest person lost at sea makes him less worthy to stay alive? I guess what I am trying to ask is since killing is the only way to preserver in life throughout this situation doesn’t it make sense to kill the weakest?
I don't agree with what Yuxiao said in her comment. We couldn't apply consequentialism to this case because this case could be ended in various ways. What if another boat passed by their boat right after they killed the boy? Then the action would be totally unnecessary and the boy would die for nothing.
I deem that Dudley and Stephens are guilty because they killed the weakest boy who is innocent in order to make their own survive. Everyone has their rights to survive and no one is allowed to take someone else’s life away. What they did is against that boy’s rights. However, in that situation, I totally understand their positions and their feelings. They have been starved for a long time. The boy was sick and it seemed that he was going to die. I think if they could make sure that he was going to die, it would be ok to eat him. Otherwise, they could not just make the decision regard other people’s rights and life, or they may wait him to die and then eat him….but they were not able to wait that long.. Nevertheless, they are not innocent, because they do not have the rights to violate other’s rights of life. From the other side, by measuring the value of each consequence: all members die or one die and the other three live, it seems that the second one is much more acceptable because at least, some people survive and a dying person die. But, is it ok to judge people’s life by the value? I mean that every life is important so it is wrong to have that incorrect concept.
Murdering a person is unacceptable most of the time, unless if there are reasonable causes to it. In this case, they, Dudley and Brooks, shouldn’t be guilty of murder. What they did was in act of necessity, because they did not know if the help would come at any time soon. H. James, lawyer for the Crown, states, “his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defense,” which I don’t think is true because of the pressure of necessity, which A. Collins, lawyer for the prisoners, explained.
Being in hunger for 8 days and thirst for 5 days is very painful and mentally impacting. It will affect their brain to work differently. In Foundation of Health class, we watched a video which explained what human’s brain will adapt to when they are in crisis. The man was stranded in ocean with no food, but he was able to catch fish. For a while, he only ate the flesh of those fishes, but as time passed, his brain changed and craved him to eat the eyes and intestines in order to take in minerals he needed. His brain made him to enjoy those parts. Their brain would have had changed as the situation became worse that they made decisions they wouldn’t make normally. So the fact that they were in grave situation mattered and because they would have died if they did not killed the boy. Also it doesn’t matter that they were rescued because they were rescued four days later, which means that they would have died if they didn’t make up their decision.
Pressure of necessity, hunger, and brain science affected their decision. I believe that almost anyone who experiences same thing will make the same choice. I disagree with Yuxiao’s statement, “Killing a human is wrong no matter what the reason is.” My understanding of her statement is “they should all die painfully, because killing another human is wrong.” Considering Bentham’s Utilitarism, Dudley and brook’s decision was the best thing they could have done. In conclusion, I find them not guilty.
Even though I find them not guilty, I don't think boy being the weakest made a difference. Because he was weak for famine. If someone else was sacrificed, then he would have recover from it, even though he was the weakest. Unless he had problems in his body other than famine, the fact that he was the weakest doesn't make a difference.
I feel that Dudley and Stephens are guilty for what they did. Just because they didn't have any food or water, it doesn't mean that they were allowed to take an innocent life away. Based on the law in the society they were living in, the law stated that "where a private person acting upon his own judgment takes the life of a fellow creature, his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defense or self defense against the acts of the person whose life is taken." Because the kid wasn't even fighting back, they murdered him. They didn’t even give him a chance to live and they just decided to kill the boy. Even as they were killing the weak, innocent, and sick boy; they told him that his time has come and stabbed him in the throat. This is not a great act and they should be punished for it. Even though they needed food to survive, they should of gone fishing or should have just waited until they got rescued the next day. They deserve to get punished and be placed in jail forever.
In my opinion Dudley and Stephens are guilty of murder. I strongly believe that no matter what the circumstances are murder is murder. In this case Dudley and Stephens killed a boy that may have had a chance at survival. The unknowns to this situation were numerous. Dudley and Stephens could have come across a boat two hours after the killed the boy and he still could have remained alive. As I stated before though murder is murder no matter what lies in your way. As Cam and others stated Utilitarianism says that you can or should do the greatest good for the greatest number. Although in this situation I am going to say that statement is false because they killed a young boy. In that situation they could have killed the boy and never found help and they could have all died. In my opinion I would rather keep everyone alive and hope for the best, because the rules on land still apply on water.
Post a Comment