THE INNOCENT SPELUNKERS
The four spelunkers decided to go for exploration of the caves and while still at the entrance, a landslide occurred. They got stuck and decided to wait for a rescue party to come along (Suber, 1998). They were stuck for twenty days as rescue efforts were still being put in place (Suber, 1998). The four spelunkers were overcome with hunger then Paul proposed they draw straws so as to decide who to eat. Unfortunately, when Paul drew his straw it was the shortest. They then ate Paul as was agreed (Suber, 1998). The three were later rescued then sued for murder of the fifth member (Paul) of the Spelunker society (Suber, 1998). This paper therefore seeks to justify the innocence of the Spelunkers based on the oath the four of them took.
The Spelunkers were justified in killing one of their own because they were all about to starve to death and they willingly took an oath that bound them. This was a win-win situation for either of them who gambled their life knowing what would happen and they had consented to it earlier. Oaths are always considered legal if all parties involved agree their act was therefore justified - eating one of their own. When people are faced with difficulties in life and death issues, they struggle to overcome the circumstances. In line with the situation that the Spelunkers were facing, they sought to make strange decisions that sometimes are horrific and can disturb people’s mind. In event that one ends up taking another’s life it would be hard for people to neither understand nor tolerate. The three spelunkers are therefore innocent.
Even though they do not understand why such drastic action was taken by an individual and the situation they had been undergoing. In the modern society, the basic human behavior for a person strives to survive under the tough situation, the Spelunkers, as ordinary people facing the tough situation, made a reasonable effort to come out that the decision to survive under the limited resource and information, along with the existence of time restriction; therefore the surviving Spelunkers should not be charged with murder based on the consequence of their decision.
One of the dire circumstances is the moment when one Spelunker was under— three people were going to be starving to death in any minute. There was completely no food supply and water nearby and death was a few steps away. They could only desperately wait there and do nothing as death was approaching one stride closer at every breath they had to grasp for; they could have gone crazy and killed each other within the next minute of frightful waiting in the quest of seeking something to sustain their hunger.
It was obvious that all of them had to die in either of those two scenarios, it was not known who at that point would lose his life because it was either a win or lose situation for any of them because they both literally gambled their lives away by drawing the straws. This situations best describes the survival for the fittest situation. All of them had to fight for their lives. Unfortunately fate had it that one of them would die in the circumstance. The four should therefore not be charged for murder.
Reference
Suber, P. (1998). The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions. New York: Routledge.
