In the summer of 1884, four English sailors, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks and Richard Parker who was a cabin boy were cast away in a storm in the Atlantic Ocean and were forced to put into an open boat from which they were stranded. Inside the boat, they had only two tins of turnips. They lacked supply of water and food for three days. Fortunately, on the fourth day they caught a turtle on which they fed till the twelfth day when it was entirely consumed. The depended on the sporadic rain for the supply of fresh water. By the time they got to the eighteenth day, they had been without food fo seven days and without water for five days. As a result, Dudley and Stephens suggested to Brooks that one of them be sacrificed to save the rest since prospects of being rescued alive were dwindling. They were referring to the cabin boy. Brooks dissented. The following day, Dudley suggested that lots be cast to determine who ought to be sacrificed to save the rest. The cabin boy was not consulted as to whether the lots ought to be cast. Again, Brooks dissented. Dudley and Stephens made a case that they had families that depended on them whereas the cabin boy was an orphan with no family. Accordingly, they thought that it was wise to kill the cabin boy so as to save the rest of the sailors. Dudley proposed that the cabin boy be killed the following morning if help did not come. The following morning no rescue had come. Dudley sought to find out if Brooks had changed his mind but still he did not consent to the killing of the boy. Dudley ordered him to sleep. He and Stephens approached the boy. The boy could not defend himself since he was weak owing to starvation and drinking of sea water. Dudley told the boy that his time had come. He said a prayer, asking for forgiveness and pleading that their souls be saved. Dudley then slit the boy’s jugular vein using his pen knife. Thereafter, they fed on the flesh and blood of the deceased for the next four days when they were rescued. They were taken to the port of Faulmouth where they Dudley and Stephens were indicted for the murder of Richard Parker. Brooks testified for the prosecution. The defendants admitted to killing the cabin boy. However, in their defense, they submitted that they did so out of necessity.
This paper takes the view that what the sailors did by killing and feeding on the flesh and blood of the cabin boy was immoral in the extreme. The fact that they were starving did not justify sacrificing the life of a defenseless boy in order to save their three lives. It is immaterial that the three sailors had families that depended on them and that the dying boy was an orphan with no family.
The morality of the sailor’s decision to kill and feed on the cabin boy was inspired by the utilitarian approach. The utilitarian theory was advanced by Jeremy Bentham who posited that human beings are governed by two sovereign masters namely; pain and pleasure. He asserted that human beings are in constant avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure. Accordingly, morality ought to be based on maximization of the overall level of happiness and actions judged based on their utility in maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest majority (Sandel, Justice: A Reader 9-14).
Utilitarianism has been criticized on several grounds most of which this paper agrees in arguing that what Dudley and Stephens did was morally wrong. One of them is that it blatantly disregards individual preferences and rights. Although according to the theory, the sacrificing of personal preferences at the altar of the happiness of the majority is justified, it can potentially result in a gross violation of fundamental norms of the society if scrupulously applied. Historical events of gross violation of individual rights discredit the theory. For instance, Michael J Sandel illustrates how utilitarianism can be used in advancing human rights violation in the name of greatest happiness to the majority by citing the throwing of Christians to lions in Coliseum for purposes of amusement of crowds. Accordingly, the utilitarian approach justifies the excruciating pain suffered by the Christians while being devoured by the lions on the overall happiness the crowd derives at the sight of it (Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? 37). Dudley and Stephens were able to save the lives of three sailors hence maximizing the happiness of the majority including the families of the three sailors by sacrificing one orphan who had no family. Nevertheless, the seemingly noble accomplishment of the sacrifice violated the rights of Richard Parker. Hence, the act was morally wrong due to the fact that it violated the inherent right of an individual regardless of the three lives it saved in the process.
Additionally, utilitarianism has been criticized for its tendency to weigh preferences without judging them. Preferences vary a great deal as a function of individual value systems. Therefore, all individual preferences cannot be expressed in one form of currency without undervaluation of some preferences in the process. This is because utilitarianism does not necessarily internalize every external preference. Moreover, translating all individual preferences into one currency for instance into monetary terms so as to weigh them as the proponents of utilitarianism would assert is next to impossible. This is informed by the fact that is not practically possible to measure and compare all values and goods on a single scale (Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? 41). Accordingly, the decision to slaughter Richard Parker by Dudley to save the lives of the three sailors did not internalize the individual worth of the life of Parker as there is no basis upon which human life can be valued so as to weigh it over the lives of other people. Therefore, the choice made by Dudley and Stephens was categorically wrong in so far as it failed to internalize the inherent worth of Parker’s life.
Whereas it is true that the sailors would have certainly died had they not feed on the flesh and blood of the cabin boy, it does not in any way justify murder. In arguing in favor of Libertarianism, Sandel uses an analogy of a dialysis patient who is in need of a kidney transplant. He asserts that just because the patient needs the kidney more than a prospective donor who has two healthy kidneys does not entitle the patient to one of the kidneys of the prospective donor as of right however urgent and pressing the patient’s needs may be (M. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? 67). It follows, therefore, that the flesh and blood of the cabin boy were his. The three sailors were not entitled to slaughter the cabin boy to feed on his flesh and blood. It does not matter the fact that the lives of the three sailors depended on it neither is the fact that the cabin boy appeared to be dying having drunk sea water.
According to Emmanuel Kant, all individuals are inherently entitled to respect, dignity and life regardless of their utility in furthering the greatest happiness to the greatest majority. He asserts that individuals ought not to be used as a means of advancing the welfare of other members of the society (M. Sandel 107). However, he does not predicate this argument on the Libertarian position that forcing individuals to be at the disposal of the welfare of the society contravenes the fundamental right of self-ownership that is inherent in every individual by virtue of being a human being. The reason he differs with libertarianism is that it justifies irrational acts by human beings such as consensual cannibalism. Instead, he advances the position that the rationale for universal human rights rest on the fact that human beings are rational beings worthy of inherent dignity and respect. Therefore, even if the cabin boy’s consent had been sought and granted it still does not make the act of taking the boys life morally right.
More so, this paper concurs with Kant’s assertions that morality cannot be based on empirical considerations such as a preference that people have at a particular point in time since the said considerations are highly contingent and variable. Individual preferences only equip individuals to survive and pursue happiness albeit at the expense of individual rights. It does not help individuals distinguish between what is right and wrong. As a result, they ought not to be used as a basis upon which morality is founded since morality is meant to inform the fundamental norms that hold the fabric of the society together (M. Sandel 106). The decision to slaughter the cabin boy was informed by the preferences of the two sailors at the moment yet in a different context the individual preference would have judged the decision as a morally reprehensible.
In conclusion, the morality of an act is inherent in the act itself as opposed to the consequences of the act. Kant argues that the moral worth of an action is not only inherent in the consequences the act yields. On the contrary, it comprises the motive behind the act itself. Therefore, an action is not held to be good based on the consequences it accomplishes. Instead, it is properly held to be good in itself regardless of whether it prevails or not (M. Sandel 111). The three sailors sought to justify the killing of the cabin boy by pleading necessity. Indeed, the slaughter of the cabin boy appears to have served a noble purpose. It kept the sailors alive until the day they were rescued. The families of the sailors were spared the grief and loss of financial support that would have been occasioned by the death of the sailors had they not fed on the cabin boy. Nevertheless, in light of Kant’s argument, slaughtering the cabin boy was categorically wrong regardless of the seemingly noble effects the act accomplished. Similarly, had the sailors chose not to slaughter the cabin boy but rather take a chance of either starving to death or waiting to be rescued, whichever comes first, the choice would have been categorically right. Even if the sailors had died in the end, the choice would remain categorically right. This is due to the fact that the moral worth of a choice is inherent in the choice itself as opposed to the consequences that flow from the choice in question.
Works Cited
Primary Source
Queen v Dudley and Stephens 1884 14 QBD 273 DC Queens Bench Division, England. 1884.
Secondary Sources
Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sandel, Michael J. "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 37-46.
Sandel, Micheal. "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 103-116. Print.
Sandel, Micheal. "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 66-74. Print.
