ASLAMPASHA KHAN E2010021

Speluncean explorers
Case Summary The case tells the story of a group of spelunkers (cave-explorers) in the Commonwealth of Newgarth, trapped in a cave by a landslide. As they approach the point of starvation, they make radio contact with the rescue team. Engineers on the team estimate that the rescue will take another10 days. The men describe their physical condition to physicians at the rescue camp and ask whether they can survive another 10 days without food. The physicians think this very unlikely. Then the spelunkers ask whether they could survive another 10 days if they killed and ate a member of their party. The physicians reluctantly answer that they would. Finally, the men ask whether they ought to hold a lottery to determine whom to kill and eat. No one at the rescue camp is willing to answer this question. The men turn off their radio, and sometime later hold a lottery, kill the loser, and eat him. When they are rescued, they are prosecuted for murder, which in Newgarth carries a mandatory death penalty. My Opinion on the Speluncean explorers Case. From the facts of the case it is clear that it was not easy for the men to take such a drastic step. They did not have any prior intention of killing Wetmore. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures. Under normal circumstances they would not have taken another human beings life. They did it solely for the purpose of their own survival. If battling hunger can be considered to be self-defence, then the act of the accused can come under the purview of self-defence. The four had no intention to kill and was merely a means of survival. Only after extensive deliberations, did they realise that they had no other option for survival, but to sacrifice the life of one of them and survive on his flesh. What are the legal ethical and moral issues in the case? From an ethical point of view, the four accused should not be tried at all. However, while analysing this case from the purview of law they would be guilty of murder as there existed both the mental and physical aspect of the crime. From moral point If the men had not taken this extreme step there would have been five deaths instead of one. What would I choose? I would choose to kill or to be killed and eat or eaten as I strongly support that saving 4 lives at the cost of one is the best. Since we have already lost eleven lives to rescue four of them. Is it like we have risked 10 lives just to see these 4people dying in front of our eyes?