Lon L. Fuller constructed the fictitious case, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” to illustrate the clashes of divergent jurisprudential philosophies on judicial decision-making. This paper will focus on Justice Foster’s argument on the basis of natural law theory, and Justice Keen’s argument on the basis of legal positivism.
According to natural law theorists, we humans have an inherent drive towards cultural goods, procreation of children, self-preservation, to know the truth, and to coexist in society. Activities such as these conform to the nature of the world and the nature of human beings, thus, they are morally correct; activities that work against the natural laws are morally incorrect. On the basis of this, Justice Foster believes …show more content…
In this sense, Justice Foster is arguing for a purposive interpretation of the law. The Newgarth’s murder statute operates under the purpose of deterring men from crime. He argues that centuries ago, cases of murder in self-defense have been excused, even when the literal wording of the statute does not state such exceptions. Since a killing in self-defense could not operate in a deterrent manner, the same line of reasoning can be applied to the case of Commonwealth v. Speluncean Explorers. Just like how, “A man whose life is threatened will repel his aggressor, whatever the law may say,” any group of men that will ever find themselves in a predicament such as the Speluncean Explorers, will make decisions of life and death uncontrolled by the contents of the criminal code. Thus, the effect of Newgarth’s murder statute should be withdrawn from the case at hand on the basis of the same rationale that were applied by previous judges centuries ago in the case of …show more content…
The statute states that, “whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” Certainly, the defendants took the life of another, but their crime was not a result of willfull killing. What is important to note is that all five explorers had entered into an agreement to cast lots to decide who would be sacrificed, including Whetmore himself. When we think of murders, it does not include agreements of any kind—a murderer willfully takes the life of another regardless of whether the other party consented to it or not. Whetmore’s death can be argued to be an assisted suicide, as he consented to his death. It seems contradictory for us to believe that human life should not be sacrificed for any reason when in our ordinary relations, we sacrifice human lives on a daily basis. If we should convict the defendants as murderers for sacrificing one life to save the lives of four others, would it not be right for us to also convict the engineers and government officials for sacrificing ten workmen to save five
According to natural law theorists, we humans have an inherent drive towards cultural goods, procreation of children, self-preservation, to know the truth, and to coexist in society. Activities such as these conform to the nature of the world and the nature of human beings, thus, they are morally correct; activities that work against the natural laws are morally incorrect. On the basis of this, Justice Foster believes …show more content…
In this sense, Justice Foster is arguing for a purposive interpretation of the law. The Newgarth’s murder statute operates under the purpose of deterring men from crime. He argues that centuries ago, cases of murder in self-defense have been excused, even when the literal wording of the statute does not state such exceptions. Since a killing in self-defense could not operate in a deterrent manner, the same line of reasoning can be applied to the case of Commonwealth v. Speluncean Explorers. Just like how, “A man whose life is threatened will repel his aggressor, whatever the law may say,” any group of men that will ever find themselves in a predicament such as the Speluncean Explorers, will make decisions of life and death uncontrolled by the contents of the criminal code. Thus, the effect of Newgarth’s murder statute should be withdrawn from the case at hand on the basis of the same rationale that were applied by previous judges centuries ago in the case of …show more content…
The statute states that, “whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” Certainly, the defendants took the life of another, but their crime was not a result of willfull killing. What is important to note is that all five explorers had entered into an agreement to cast lots to decide who would be sacrificed, including Whetmore himself. When we think of murders, it does not include agreements of any kind—a murderer willfully takes the life of another regardless of whether the other party consented to it or not. Whetmore’s death can be argued to be an assisted suicide, as he consented to his death. It seems contradictory for us to believe that human life should not be sacrificed for any reason when in our ordinary relations, we sacrifice human lives on a daily basis. If we should convict the defendants as murderers for sacrificing one life to save the lives of four others, would it not be right for us to also convict the engineers and government officials for sacrificing ten workmen to save five