The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens 14 QBD 273 DC (1884)
Facts- Mignotte yacht overturned 1300 miles from land. There were four in the crew. Dudley the captain, Stephens was the first mate, Brooks a sailor, and the fourth a cabin boy named Parker who all escaped to lifeboat. The first three are upstanding members of the community. Parker was an orphan with no family and his first sea voyage. The only food are 2 cans of preserved turnip. No fresh water. The first three days they ate nothing, on fourth day they opened on3 can of turnips and ate it. The next day the caught a turtle and proceeded to eat the turtle and last can of turnips. For eight days after this last meal, they had nothing. Parker is ill in the corner of lifeboat as he drank seawater. …show more content…
Ethical Issues- Is it morally justifiable to kill one person to save three people? Would it make a difference if Parker had given consent? What if they all agreed to a Lottery?
Summary of Philosophies of Mill and Kant- Mill believes in principle of utility. The right action or behavior for the greatest number of people. This belief uses consequential moral reasoning. In applying Mills theory. This means the moral consequences of the action rather than the morality of the action. Did the action promote the common good? If using Mill’s theory. Then yes, the murdering of Parker was justifiable based on the principle of utility. The greatest good for the greatest number of …show more content…
Kant’s theory is the theory I am using for my belief. He believes all people should be treated with respect. All lives are equal therefore all life matters. Is Parker any less a person than the other three in the crew? The duty is to regard all life as essential from a lowly orphan cabin boy to captain. All the crew are equal regardless of status or standing, therefore entitled to equal human rights. Dudley anointed himself as the universal law in this case. It is wrong to kill, steal, lie and right to keep promises. This is the essence of duty-based ethics. “Duty based ethics do not suffer from the consequences because they are only concerned with the action itself. “ If they all had agreed to the lottery and parker drew the short stick, I then would have to agree with Mill’s theory of the good for the greatest number of people. As all were advise of the sacrifice they would have to make and all committed to the process. If Parker gave his consent to be killed, I do not believe it is morally right based on the fact that he was weak and delusional in the corner of the boat. He could not make a clear decision at the time of the
Facts- Mignotte yacht overturned 1300 miles from land. There were four in the crew. Dudley the captain, Stephens was the first mate, Brooks a sailor, and the fourth a cabin boy named Parker who all escaped to lifeboat. The first three are upstanding members of the community. Parker was an orphan with no family and his first sea voyage. The only food are 2 cans of preserved turnip. No fresh water. The first three days they ate nothing, on fourth day they opened on3 can of turnips and ate it. The next day the caught a turtle and proceeded to eat the turtle and last can of turnips. For eight days after this last meal, they had nothing. Parker is ill in the corner of lifeboat as he drank seawater. …show more content…
Ethical Issues- Is it morally justifiable to kill one person to save three people? Would it make a difference if Parker had given consent? What if they all agreed to a Lottery?
Summary of Philosophies of Mill and Kant- Mill believes in principle of utility. The right action or behavior for the greatest number of people. This belief uses consequential moral reasoning. In applying Mills theory. This means the moral consequences of the action rather than the morality of the action. Did the action promote the common good? If using Mill’s theory. Then yes, the murdering of Parker was justifiable based on the principle of utility. The greatest good for the greatest number of …show more content…
Kant’s theory is the theory I am using for my belief. He believes all people should be treated with respect. All lives are equal therefore all life matters. Is Parker any less a person than the other three in the crew? The duty is to regard all life as essential from a lowly orphan cabin boy to captain. All the crew are equal regardless of status or standing, therefore entitled to equal human rights. Dudley anointed himself as the universal law in this case. It is wrong to kill, steal, lie and right to keep promises. This is the essence of duty-based ethics. “Duty based ethics do not suffer from the consequences because they are only concerned with the action itself. “ If they all had agreed to the lottery and parker drew the short stick, I then would have to agree with Mill’s theory of the good for the greatest number of people. As all were advise of the sacrifice they would have to make and all committed to the process. If Parker gave his consent to be killed, I do not believe it is morally right based on the fact that he was weak and delusional in the corner of the boat. He could not make a clear decision at the time of the