Ethical Reasoning
1. Introduction
Moral reasoning is defined as “individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do”. The theory introduces two moral principles: consequentialist principle, which determines an act’s morality by its consequences, and categorical principle, which assesses an act by looking at its certain duties and rights despite the outcomes. To some extent, these two principles seem to contradict each other, which may become obstacles for achieving reasonable actions.
‘The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens’ held by Lord Coleridge in 1884 is such a case. It evokes a moral question whether murderers in a particular dire circumstance should be regarded as against the law and morality or not. Regarding moral reasoning theories, two opposite points of view were raised. The following parts of the essay will analyse the case based on the mentioned moral philosophies as well as explain my personal attitude toward this issue.
2. Case Analysis
2.1. Facts of the Case and its Moral Issues
The case is about an English crew consisting of three seamen (Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens and Brooks) and a cabin boy (Richard Parker) who were knocked down by the storm during their journey and had to drift on the ocean with little reserves of food and drink. After days of subsisting on such a handful of food, the crew faced the threat of starving to death. On the eighteenth day, Dudley came up with an idea of having someone sacrifice and that the victim was chosen by lottery, but was then turned down by Brooks. Dudley’s suggestion perhaps came from the purpose to help the other three survive. Regardless of the group’s dissent and a little initial hesitation, Dudley and Stephens eventually killed the boy, who was said to be in the poorest condition of four, on the next day to assure the rest’s survival. Such act of murder is normally considered both morally and legally intolerable but is still widely arguable in this situation. The three crewmen then fed on
Moral reasoning is defined as “individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do”. The theory introduces two moral principles: consequentialist principle, which determines an act’s morality by its consequences, and categorical principle, which assesses an act by looking at its certain duties and rights despite the outcomes. To some extent, these two principles seem to contradict each other, which may become obstacles for achieving reasonable actions.
‘The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens’ held by Lord Coleridge in 1884 is such a case. It evokes a moral question whether murderers in a particular dire circumstance should be regarded as against the law and morality or not. Regarding moral reasoning theories, two opposite points of view were raised. The following parts of the essay will analyse the case based on the mentioned moral philosophies as well as explain my personal attitude toward this issue.
2. Case Analysis
2.1. Facts of the Case and its Moral Issues
The case is about an English crew consisting of three seamen (Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens and Brooks) and a cabin boy (Richard Parker) who were knocked down by the storm during their journey and had to drift on the ocean with little reserves of food and drink. After days of subsisting on such a handful of food, the crew faced the threat of starving to death. On the eighteenth day, Dudley came up with an idea of having someone sacrifice and that the victim was chosen by lottery, but was then turned down by Brooks. Dudley’s suggestion perhaps came from the purpose to help the other three survive. Regardless of the group’s dissent and a little initial hesitation, Dudley and Stephens eventually killed the boy, who was said to be in the poorest condition of four, on the next day to assure the rest’s survival. Such act of murder is normally considered both morally and legally intolerable but is still widely arguable in this situation. The three crewmen then fed on