Seminar prep ELLM - Dudley v Stephens PDF

Preview

Summary

Dudley v Stephens...

Description

What were the questions of law the court had to decide in dudley and stephens? - The necessity of murder in a case like this - necessity is too vague an excuse and allowing Dudley and Stephens to get away with this would make it seem as though any murders could get away with murder, if their excuse is that they felt that they had no other choice. - What exactly murder is What social, moral, political or other critical perspectives or questions are relevant to the case? - Utilitarian argument and whether that is valid or not, should the greater good be prioritised over the life of one, weak boy who doesn’t even have a family? - We must sometimes criticise utilitarianism as what the greater good deem right may not be, for example, the majority of people thought that segregation was right however, morally this is wrong. - Two men thought that killing Parker so they could survive was right, however murder is morally wrong, moreover, cannibalism is also wrong in Western society. - Who decides whose life is taken? Is it up to other humans to take one another’s lives - Further from this, it is ironic that the punishment was initially the death sentence. - Everyone’s lives took precedence over Parker’s, which is the general premise of murder. - What intentions for murder are excused? - Is it right to kill out of self defence, even if it is premeditated (people not in immediate danger killing their abuser to prevent themselves from getting abused further) Sally Challen - Does the intention matter when it comes to a crime as serious as murder? - We shouldn’t criticise some acts of murder due to their intention and condone others - How does the sanctity of life factor into this situation? - If we are allowed to kill an unborn baby we should be allowed to kill an independent human being - Should other citizens be allowed to play ‘lottery’ with other’s lives - Do the minority matter? - Sometimes the minority has to be prioritised What were the justifications the court gave for its decision? - There was no proof of necessity - There was no guarantee that the men would’ve died - There was no guarantee that anyone was going to save them anyway (no guarantee that the men would’ve survived) - They might have been picked up the next day - Parker ‘appeared’ to be dying Cannibalism is not unlawful. Why not? Should it be? - Cannibalism is natural, it is seen in the animal kingdom, therefore humans should be excused as well, however, it is also understood that animals aren’t governed by laws, or made up of societies in the same way humans are

-

-

-

-

There is typically no emotional connection to beef or pork for example, so when a human is presented as meat this is not a limiting factor. - Humans devalue meat by calling it beef or pork (cuts of meat, not parts of body) rather than cow or pig, should the same be allowed for human meat The argument for cannibalism should be paired with the argument for vegetarianism. Ethical vegetarians don’t eat meat because they argue that humans must prioritise the emotions of the animals. The idea that cannibalism is wrong originates in Western culture; cannibalism is only wrong because society says so, in cultures where endocannibalism is practiced there is no disgust towards it. Cannibalism that isn’t criminal (doesn’t involve killing someone) can be justified as tradition or a survival method There’s nothing different with eating mammals in the same way that there is nothing wrong with getting an organ transplant Earth is overpopulated so it could be argued that cannibalism could help solve this issue If the person who is being cannibalised hasn’t consented this is murder - What form of consent is permissible Eating human meat devalues the sanctity of life Mammals exist under a ‘survival of the fittest’ principle which is innate

The Year is 2050. Humans are now living on the moon. Luke, Leia and C3PO (a robot with artificial intelligence comparable to that of a human adult) are on a shuttle from the Tees Valley Spaceport in England on the way to Clavius Base on the moon. Half way to the moon the shuttle starts to lose oxygen. At the current rate of loss they will run out of oxygen before arriving on the moon. Luke and Leia decide to break up C3PO for parts which they think might be useful to fix the oxygen supply mechanism. After doing so they ultimately arrive on the moon safely. Luke and Leia are prosecuted for murder, the prosecution relying on R v Dudley and Stephens. Look up the definition of murder in Halsbury’s via Lexis Nexis. How should the court decide the case? -

C3PO is not actually human, it is a robot It is murder for a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully to kill any human creature in being and under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied by law. (however deformed or disabled) - Some might argue that C3PO is a human creature due to the fact that artificial intelligence is comparable to a human adult. - However, it is not specified whether he has the same emotions as a human adult - There was no malice aforethought, therefore it can’t be constituted as murder, in the R v Dudley and Stephens however, it could be argued that there was as Dudley seemed somewhat triumphant of the killing, such as by wishing to keep the knife that they killed Parker with.

If the lottery had happened and included Parker would this count as a verbal contract that could not be retracted Parker’s death deprived no one of support and left no grieving wife or children1 Allowing such a killing would have bad consequences for society as a whole - weakening the norm against murder or increasing people’s tendency to take the law into their own hands The three men exploited Parker’s vulnerability and took his life without his consent The best consequence is not what we should think about when considering moral arguments; can morality be calculated and argued? Why weigh people’s preferences without weighing whether they are good or bad, we should distinguish between higher and lower pleasures

1

https://courses.edx.org/c4x/HarvardX/ER22.1x/asset/Chapter-Utilitarianism__31-33_.pdf...