In the court-case Dudley and Stephens vs. Regina, the defendants are charged with a boy on the high seas after being marooned for twenty days, without food and using his remains for food. The case presents a moral dilemma where the court has to determine to which extent a man can go in a bid at preserving their life. While the men presented a coherent argument, that they would have all died if they had not consumed the boy, he was weakest among them, and would have died altogether, the court found them in contravention of the law. The boy did not contribute to the circumstances leading to the starvation. Further, the court deduced that he was a non-consenting, helpless victim who did not pose a threat to his attackers. In consideration of this case, we apply Aristotle’s arguments and classes of actions in inferring his reaction to the case.
According to Aristotle, all actions aim at achieving some good, further, Aristotle classifies action into three categories;
- Actions that are desirable for their own sake, for instance, making love
- Actions desired for their outcome, for instance, exercising for the sake of maintaining health.
- Actions desired for both themselves and for their actions, for instance, playing poker.
In an analysis of the murder of the boy parker, the men killed him in consideration of the results of their actions, i.e., to obtain food from his remains. In this view, the action in itself is not desirable to them. In this action, however, did the men fulfill their purpose as human beings? According to Aristotle, the purpose of man is to live and act rationally. In this consideration, Aristotle proceeds to add that the function is the activity of the soul in accordance with reason. The man acted in accordance with the soul, by seeking the most practical solution to their starvation, while their action was an effort at preserving themselves. However, if they acted morally, Aristotle argues that the nature of man is neither good nor bad, and virtue is acquired out of habituation. Thus in the execution of their act, it was morally wrong for them since they never acted out of a learned pattern in finding nourishment. Additionally, if their action were considered tenable, according to Aristotle’s argument on habituation, the act would come to be regarded as normal by people in similar situations, thus altering what is ought to be preserved, and emulated by other individuals as moral/ virtuous.
