Analysing Moral and Ethical Issues in Queen V. Dudley and Stephens.
Analysing Moral and Ethical Issues of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
Moral and ethical issues In the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, there were several moral and ethical issues. I will explain them in this section using facts from Prof Michael Sandel’s video, the cited case, and a book titled “Cannibalism and common law: a Victorian yachting tragedy” by Alfred Bryan William Simpson. First, on the 23th of July, Dudley first suggested that ‘someone’ should be sacrificed to save the other 3. That ‘someone’ referred to the Richard Parker and he was not consulted. Why? Although Brooks rejected the idea and no actions were followed up, it marked the start of an intention to kill. Second, on the 24th of July, Dudley proposed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast on who to be put to death to save the rest, but Brooks refused to consent, and it was not put to Parker, that there was no drawing of lots. Why was the idea that casting of lots not be proposed to Parker since I assumed he would be among the lot casted if there was indeed a casting of lots. Third, on the same day, Dudley proposed again that it would be better to kill Parker and save the others should there be no vessel sighted the following morning. It was Parker’s life who was at stake at that point and yet again he had no idea that someone was planning to take his life. Does this not count as murder? Fourth, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, went to Parker, told him that his time has come, put a knife into his throat and killed him. The boy was not unable to make any resistance nor did he ever assent to his being killed. This seems like a clear case of taking someone’s life for the survival of 3 other men.
Another ethical issue was cannibalism, which I will discuss later. The last issue was why Parker, and not the other three, killed and fed on. Why was Parker chosen? What if Dudley, Stephens or Brooks was killed and fed on instead? There was nothing stating that Parker
Moral and ethical issues In the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, there were several moral and ethical issues. I will explain them in this section using facts from Prof Michael Sandel’s video, the cited case, and a book titled “Cannibalism and common law: a Victorian yachting tragedy” by Alfred Bryan William Simpson. First, on the 23th of July, Dudley first suggested that ‘someone’ should be sacrificed to save the other 3. That ‘someone’ referred to the Richard Parker and he was not consulted. Why? Although Brooks rejected the idea and no actions were followed up, it marked the start of an intention to kill. Second, on the 24th of July, Dudley proposed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast on who to be put to death to save the rest, but Brooks refused to consent, and it was not put to Parker, that there was no drawing of lots. Why was the idea that casting of lots not be proposed to Parker since I assumed he would be among the lot casted if there was indeed a casting of lots. Third, on the same day, Dudley proposed again that it would be better to kill Parker and save the others should there be no vessel sighted the following morning. It was Parker’s life who was at stake at that point and yet again he had no idea that someone was planning to take his life. Does this not count as murder? Fourth, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, went to Parker, told him that his time has come, put a knife into his throat and killed him. The boy was not unable to make any resistance nor did he ever assent to his being killed. This seems like a clear case of taking someone’s life for the survival of 3 other men.
Another ethical issue was cannibalism, which I will discuss later. The last issue was why Parker, and not the other three, killed and fed on. Why was Parker chosen? What if Dudley, Stephens or Brooks was killed and fed on instead? There was nothing stating that Parker