RSS Feed

Legal Ethics

April 11, 2014 by Daniel Friedland   

I recently came across an interesting hypothetical scenario that allows us to fully explore the potential limits of morality. It goes like this:

Three men and an orphaned child are stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean with a declining food source and no means of catching fish or attaining any other food. Rescue and aid will not reach them for two months, and they are all aware of this fact. The three men each have a family of their own on the mainland, yet the child has no family or other quasi-familial social ties. When the four are down to only a few scraps of food, one man pulls the other men aside and asks the question no one wants to consider. He asks, “What should we do when the food runs out?” The other men grimace as they are forced to consider their options: 1) The men could kill and eat the child so as to promote their own survival OR 2) The men could choose not to kill and eat the child, essentially solidifying their eminent death.

What should they do? There are numerous factors to consider. First, the men, like civilized society, believe that murder is wrong. Therefore, they feel to some extent that killing the child would goes against their moral codes. However, without killing the child they will all four die of starvation regardless. Logic, to some people, dictates that one death at the cost of three survivals is more practical than four deaths.

Other factors lie in the nature of the child as he compares to the men. Because the child has no family or close social relationships, he will not necessarily be sorely missed in the context of the world. The men, on the other hand, have families who rely upon them to provide shelter, food, and general care. Their deaths could be considered more detrimental because of the dependents for whom they provide. (DISCLAIMER: I do not mean to perpetuate the male chauvinism in our society; I am merely giving a hypothetical scenario in which the men happen to be support their families financially in these isolated cases.) Another factor to consider is that the child is so young and naïve, yet to experience the wonders of the world. Should he be given the chance to live a full meaningful life, which the men arguably had the chance to do already?

Synthesizing all of the moral arguments for both options, the basic question comes down to a choice between personal morality and survival. The idea of “survival of the fittest” comes into play, as well. Regardless of the aesthetic sophistication marked by present-day society, men are still animals and are strongly influenced by the will to survive no matter the cost.

Bringing this scenario around to apply to legal ethics, I will conclude the scenario:

The men choose to kill and eat the child, thus allowing them to survive until they are rescued after the duration of two months. Upon rescue, the remains of the child are found on the ship, and the men are charged with murder.

How should courts rule in this case?

Often, there is a clear connection between legality and morality, but what happens when the line is blurred?

Must courts adhere to the law that murder is inherently illegal or should they recognize or place value upon the prospect of survival that was involved?

Should the men be found guilty or innocent?

Legal ethics tries to answer tough questions like these. Tell me what you think! How would you answer these questions? Remember, there are no wrong answers in philosophy!

That’s all for now! Stay fly, and goodbye!

-Dan


3 Comments »

  1. Laura Beebe says:

    This was a really interesting and thought-provoking post! Personally, I am a bit unresolved as to which stance I would take. Logically, it makes sense that the men should not be guilty of murder– under any possible scenario, someone would have to die for anyone else to stay alive. However, in killing the child, the men implicitly decide that their own lives are more important than that of the child. Can a human justifiably make such a judgment without suffering any consequences? Even if the men provide for their families, why are their own children more important than the child’s life in the boat? But if the men are executed or locked away in prison for the rest of their lives, their actions would have been for naught. I think I’m leaning towards a guilty charge, but I would have to think about the problem much longer. Thanks for taking on such an interesting topic!

  2. Kimberly Lux says:

    This is such a great post! Personally I don’t think I would have killed the child. But I can somewhat understand the reason for survival and the whole “picking off the weakest member”. Like you mentioned there defeinelty is a fine line between legality and morals. Personally I don’t think there is a right or wrong choice to this scenario. Both sides have pros and cons that you could argue in its favor. Great post Dan!

  3. Leigh Boggs says:

    This is a really difficult scenario, and are really hard questions to answer. Putting myself in the situation, I personally do not think I could have killed the child, for my own survival, but my opinion aside, the combination of legality and morals is very interesting. I think that the state of the men and the stress they were under should be considered. I do not think they should be found guilty of murder, rather they should be given help to get through the difficutly of the decision, and should have some consequence. Great job as always in getting us to think! Thanks Dan!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Skip to toolbar