The Speluncean Explorers Case PDF

Preview

Summary

The assignment I had to do about the Spelucnean explorers case - got a 10...

Description

Marta Ramos

!1

The Speluncean Explorers Case The case of the Speluncean Explorers, written by Lon L. Fuller, is a fictionalised account based on a real case of cannibalism that had occurred some years earlier. In the fictional account, a group of spelunkers that were trapped inside a cave without food proceeded to murder and cannibalise Robert Whetmore (one of the spelunkers) after drawing a lottery. Subsequent to the facts we are provided with the opinions of five jurists, and I was particularly drawn to Justice Foster’s opinion, who declares that the explorers are innocent and free from any charges. The first argument Foster gives is that the explorers were in a state of nature, not a state of civil society and hence the laws of the Commonwealth cannot be applied to this case. When the four men were in the cave they were in a situation where survival was at stake and the only chance of survival was by eating the flesh of one of their own. If you look at the case of Commonwealth v. Staymore, the defendant was pardoned for breaking the law by leaving his car parked for more than it was permitted because of the political demonstrations in the street. If one applies the same logic to the case of the Spelucnean explorers, the men are not guilty of homicide because the law is not applicable to extraordinary set of conditions. For that reason, the State does not have jurisdiction over the explorers given that the law of nature allows explorers to put in place their own laws and exercise their jurisdiction. Once we have established that they are in a state of nature, it is therefore reasonable that, since positive law cannot be applied, common sense and moral should replace it. Putting the question of law aside, we are all governed by pain and pleasure, so any moral system has to take into account those two fundamentals. How do you best take them into account? By maximising them. Hence, this leads to Bentham’s doctrine of utilitarianism: the right thing to do is to act in a way that maximises the overall level of happiness, that is, utility. Maximising utility is a principle that is not only for individuals but for communities and legislators. And what is a community? As Bentham put it: it’s the sum of individuals that comprise it. Hence, when deciding the best policy, the legislator should guide themselves by what maximises the balance of pleasure over pain. If we apply the doctrine of utilitarianism to this case, the best outcome is that one man is sacrificed if that will guarantee the survival of the other four. If the outcome would have been the death of five men due to starvation, would it not be our wish that at least four of the men would have survived? If such actions would have not been taken, the end result would be that five men had died due to starvation when they could have survived by sacrificing one of them. In my opinion, there’s a distinction between what’s morally apprehensible and what makes someone accountable. What is always moral is not necessarily against the law and necessity does not justify murder but, at some point, your degree of necessity exonerates you from any guilt. It is concurrent that everyone has the right to life but the four explorers did what was necessary in order to survive. Moreover, as Foster argues, 10 men were killed by landslides during the rescue process, if they were willing to risk 10 lives in order to save 5, why is it not justified that 1 man is murdered in order to save the life of 4? This arises another issue: is the discrepancy of the judges that oppose Foster’s views on the acts or on the lack of due process? However, I believe that the lack of due process is offset by the fact that such acts were performed by means of a lottery. In such lottery, everyone consented that someone should die and thus they are all

!2 sort of sacrificing themselves to save the rest, everyone knew there was going to be a death and therefore it is morally justifiable. On the other hand, Justice Tatting proposes the analogy that, if a man is found stealing food, even if he is doing so in order to avoid starvation, would be liable for theft. This parallelism is well founded yet it fails to take into account a pivotal issue. The issue not considered is that the the man of that case if free, in the outside world and has a variety of resources, since he could achieve the same result through other actions that are not unlawful (for example going to church for food). The explorers in the cave, however, did not have any other choice available and were in such a deep need for food that they resorted to extreme measures if that guaranteed survival. Justice Keen also provides an interesting insight into self defense, claiming that Whetmore had not threatened their lives and consequently it cannot be argued that the men were acting in self defence. Yet, I agree to a greater extent with Justice Foster’s views, who declares that people conform to the law for a certain purpose or motive so, if one kills another and does so in self-defense, it is not considered murder. In this case, the men murdered Whetmore because they were choosing between life and death and, were it not for his death, they would have not appeared in court. And, since they had his consent when they drew the lottery, it can be argued that it was an ‘assisted suicide’, not a homicide. In addition to this, given the fact that the men had no past records of cannibalism, it is safe to affirm that there was no malicious intention in committing the murder, the decision arose from the desperation for survival. It is also important to mention that the Spelucnean explorers had not eaten in days and their mental health had deteriorated, pushing them to think irrationally. Furthermore, they were told that they would be rescued in 10 days and that they would not survive that long without food. In my opinion, Justice Forster provides a great example of the golden rule and Dworkin’s donut theory being applied to the interpretation of the law. Were the law applied following the literal rule, the result would have been absurd since 10 lives were sacrificed to rescue 5 explorers yet sacrificing 1 to save 4 was deemed illicit. One may consider the actions categorically wrong even if they bring good results because of the intrinsic quality of the acts, not the result, but even if we take that into account, the decision was made upon a lottery and hence all the men had agreed to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. That being said, I am inclined to agree with Justice Foster’s opinion and deem the explorers innocent....