An item of debate that was discussed when dealing with the case Queen vs Dudley is morality. Given the circumstances of the case, was it morally just to murder Richard Parker in the hopes for survival? My answer is no. Human beings rely completely on the basis of their morals. The moral code of human beings is what separates us from other species on our planet. Morals are what allow us to live in a civilized manner, instead of digressing to our original primitive state, and letting our animalistic natures take over. In my opinion, the killing of Richard Parker was morally wrong in the given situation and therefore was not the right thing to do. My opinion is based on the definition of murder. Taking the life of someone without his or her consent for your own personal motivation is considered first-degree murder. The other members stuck on the boat most certainly did not respect the wishes of Richard Parker when taking his life, thereby taking away his free will. It is unethical and unjust to take away the free will of another human being, and therefore the murder of Richard Parker was not morally justified.
The main opposing argument for the justification of this murder is based on the Machiavellian theory that ‘the end justifies the means’. It is derived from the idea of utilitarianism, killing one in order to save the four. Opponents argue that since more people would die had they not sacrificed Richard Parker, it would be wrong to allow themselves to die. From a practical point of view, this argument would make sense. If this situation were being judged statistically, the amount of survivors would definitely be more if they were to have killed and eaten Richard Parker. However, the question isn’t practicality, it is morality. It is the difference between pulling the lever, and pushing the fairly large guy off of the bridge in relation to The Trolley Problem. In both cases, it would be more practical to kill the one in order to save the rest; however, Queen vs Dudley relates more to pushing the fat guy off of the bridge, because the murder being executed is a lot more personal, therefore the issue of morality comes into play. No matter how many lives are being saved, it is still morally wrong to take the life of someone unwilling to give it up because you are taking away their right to free will. In addition, the end of this scenario is not necessarily perfect. Firstly, it is not a given that all of the four people will survive if one man is sacrificed. The possibility of being stuck at sea for a longer period of time is very likely, and it may be necessary to kill another in order to survive. When looking at this from a statistical point of view, is it okay to kill two in order to save three? Proponents of the Machiavellian theory would agree with this but what if the sailors were stuck at sea for longer and they were forced to kill three to save two. In this case, does the end still justify the means? Furthermore, those that do survive are more prone to mental disorders due to trauma. This is also displayed in the Queen vs. Dudley case where the two survivors were haunted by the events of their past actions. Their psychological deterioration therefore portrays that the end is not always sufficient enough to justify the means.
Another excuse for this inhumane behavior would be that in dire circumstances like this, the animalistic nature of human beings is released and survival of the fittest comes into play. Some could argue that their actions were circumstantial, and therefore justified. Some say it is not right for people to determine whether what they did was moral or not, because we have not experienced what they went through and therefore we cannot make an informed decision. In my opinion this argument does not withhold. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to say that those of us that are not in their situation should not judge what they should have done. From a court’s perspective, I agree that this argument would come into play, because it’s impossible to determine a fair punishment for this case. However, when discussing morality, it does not make a difference. The idea of morals is that one should have and apply them in any situation they are in. Laws may differ according to the situation, but whether something is morally right or wrong should stay consistent. The question that arises in this situation is ‘where is the line’? Shifting morals based on the circumstances could possibly justify atrocities even crueler than those displayed in Queen vs Dudley. For example, could the killing of 6, 000, 000 Jews for Germany’s economic progress be justified? If moral codes are stretched far enough that such atrocities can be permitted, is this moral code still considered moral? In dire circumstances humans should still be expected to maintain a humane nature? One must consider that our morals are the only thing that separates us from other animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment