When is cannibalism okay? Is it ever okay? In a utilitarian society killing and cannibalism could be just under the right circumstances. A utilitarian society believes that benefit is a way to describe law; the greater population’s pleasure over pain is the way to tell if something is just. Jeremy Bentham explains the principles of utilitarianism in his works Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham explains how one could weigh the morality of something based on seven principles that describe pain and pleasure. This bends what the law means to most and can make killing a just thing to do if it brings pleasure to the community. This brings up the argument of cannibalism, or more specifically the events that happened one night after a shipwreck.
…show more content…
In the case of pain on the part of Thomas Dudley and his crew there is very little in the instant of the killing. The worst pain that faced Dudley and his crew when the three killed and ate Parker was what was faced after. The events that happened on the lifeboat were traumatic and could cause long lasting scars and guilt for the three survivors. The pleasure turned into pain as time passed making the act impure. Stephens and Dudley faced trial for murder and had to deal with the psychological stress that was placed on them after having killed a boy. There is some uncertainty in the act on whether or not the three would be found. They were not certain killing the boy would preserve their lives long enough to be rescued. Parker would also feel some pain from the betrayal of his crew. They never gave him a choice they just stabbed him in the back literally. However, when added up among the crew the pains were not so intense that it might block out the …show more content…
When the Mignonette case was put on trial, the court was ready to execute Dudley and Stephens but ultimately they only spent six months in prison because of sympathy felt by the jury. However, this sympathy could not let them fully off the hook. Though Coleridge, the representative of the queen, sympathized with Dudley and Stephens he ultimately had to stand by the law. To support Coleridge’s decision, Sir James, who was going against the crew, puts an emphasis on self defense. The crew members were not defending themselves by killing Parker; they were just killing him for food. If someone were to steal food they would be a thief, so therefore killing someone to take their food is murder. The law does not change what it means just because someone is in pain. This is very different from what Bentham would have thought because he would not have seen it as theft like James did, but as an act to save the crew’s lives. However, the defence, Collins, would be in agreement with Bentham. Collins claimed that what the crew did was an act of necessity. Coleridge later shot this down saying “the temptation to the act which existed here was not what the law has ever called necessity” (6). The law should not change find something that is illegal necessary just because the crew was starving. If the law was based on necessity and not rules, where would the line be drawn?
In the case of pain on the part of Thomas Dudley and his crew there is very little in the instant of the killing. The worst pain that faced Dudley and his crew when the three killed and ate Parker was what was faced after. The events that happened on the lifeboat were traumatic and could cause long lasting scars and guilt for the three survivors. The pleasure turned into pain as time passed making the act impure. Stephens and Dudley faced trial for murder and had to deal with the psychological stress that was placed on them after having killed a boy. There is some uncertainty in the act on whether or not the three would be found. They were not certain killing the boy would preserve their lives long enough to be rescued. Parker would also feel some pain from the betrayal of his crew. They never gave him a choice they just stabbed him in the back literally. However, when added up among the crew the pains were not so intense that it might block out the …show more content…
When the Mignonette case was put on trial, the court was ready to execute Dudley and Stephens but ultimately they only spent six months in prison because of sympathy felt by the jury. However, this sympathy could not let them fully off the hook. Though Coleridge, the representative of the queen, sympathized with Dudley and Stephens he ultimately had to stand by the law. To support Coleridge’s decision, Sir James, who was going against the crew, puts an emphasis on self defense. The crew members were not defending themselves by killing Parker; they were just killing him for food. If someone were to steal food they would be a thief, so therefore killing someone to take their food is murder. The law does not change what it means just because someone is in pain. This is very different from what Bentham would have thought because he would not have seen it as theft like James did, but as an act to save the crew’s lives. However, the defence, Collins, would be in agreement with Bentham. Collins claimed that what the crew did was an act of necessity. Coleridge later shot this down saying “the temptation to the act which existed here was not what the law has ever called necessity” (6). The law should not change find something that is illegal necessary just because the crew was starving. If the law was based on necessity and not rules, where would the line be drawn?