Dudley And Stephens Did Not Act Ethically

In my own view, Dudley and Stephens did not act ethically. They killed Parker based on the fact that he was an orphan and had no family to go back home to. Therefore, Parker unlike the rest had nothing to lose and this was unjustifiable. Since he was weak and frail from consuming sea water he was going to die but could possibly have fought for his life for the next four days till they were rescued. Instead, Dudley and Stephens took it upon themselves to end the poor boys life anyway. According to Michael Sandel’s lecture, there is “the right thing to do and the just thing to do”. Here Dudley and Stephen thought it was right to kill out of necessity but it was not the just thing to murder parker without his consent.
B. What would you have done …show more content…
If I was in Dudley’s place I would have hang on tight which may have been difficult considering the conditions they were in. They already went on for four days without food and managed to catch a turtle. This meant that there was a sign of life at least in the sea hence a sign of hope for them to find meals. I would also have thought through what the possible outcome would have been after taking away the life of an innocent boy.
C. Did brooks act ethically in refusing to participate in killing but then feeding on the boy?
Brooks did act ethically in refusing to participate in the murder of Parker. Although his ethics are questionable as we read through the story. He may have refused as his morality would not allow him or he may have just refused because he was afraid and didn’t want to kill. Although, at the end he was up for the idea of feeding on Parker as he saw the rest were since they had no other food to depend on.
D. What was the ultimate outcome of this case? Do you agree with the outcome, why or why …show more content…
Although, Brooks was spared and used as a witness as there was only three of them. I agree with the matter because Dudley and Stephens put their necessity before Parkers. Moreover, killing a weak one would mean that every time the survivors were out of food they would have to sacrifice the life of a the next weak one until they are saved. Cannibalism is considered an inhumane and morally refuse able act and the two did not consider the consequences that would follow the killing of Parker. Also if the court did not consider this as murder, more killings would have been likely to occur with the excuse that it was out of necessity for the survival of others. According to Sandel’s lecture on justice, it would have been better if the two asked for Parkers consent and this would show that Parker died willingly therefore “morally permissible”. Drawing of the lots would have resulted to a just and fair outcome as the four would have entered an agreement thus a verbal contract and the loser had to die. However, I do not agree with Jeremy Benthom’s idea of maximising utility that is “the balance of pleasure over pain and happiness over suffering”. Murder is considered categorically wrong whether they did it so save three at the expense of one life. Murder is evil even if it multiples ones happiness and reduces suffering.in this