Dudley and Stephens lifeboat incident is a famous criminal case where Dudley and Stephens killed Parker, a young man, to save themselves from starvation. The two sailors alongside Brooks and Parker faced a storm and were trapped in a boat in the deep sea for weeks without water and food. According to Nytimes.com, Dudley and Stephens suggested that one of them had to be sacrificed to save the rest from hunger (Falk para 4). They agreed to kill Parker without seeking his consent, as he was the frailest and youngest. Although Brook dissented, Dudley and Stephens killed Parker, and all feasted on his body. According to The Irish Times, under no circumstance can the killing of an innocent person be justified (Bacik and Caroline para 10). Therefore, murdering Parker was morally wrong regardless of the context of this action.
The four sailors in the lifeboat were in a desperate situation after staying without food and water for several days. The seamen fed on small rations of turnips for the first three days in the lifeboat. The Irish Times asserts that they had nothing to feed on by the eighth day, and Parker was ill-lying in the corner of the lifeboat after drinking seawater against the counsel of the others (Bacik and Caroline para 3). After losing hope of being rescued, Dudley and Stephens ended up slaying the young boy for food. The boy’s body was their food as they awaited rescue. According to utilitarianism, an action is morally right if the number of people who enjoy its results is higher than those who are negatively affected (Woodard 58). Therefore, since the three men benefited from the death of one individual, Parker, this action was morally right under the utilitarian perspective.
Under Kantian ethics, Dudley and Stephens’ actions were against humanity. According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on moral duty but not on its consequences (Bojanowski 62). Human beings have the moral duty to behave rationally even when they face natural desires or needs (Bojanowski 63). Although Parker was the weakest and youngest, the sailors had the moral duty to care for and protect the young boy. Moreover, no human life is important than the other as the sailors had no evidence or assurance that Parker would die before them (Falk para 5). Thus, even if utilitarian philosophy supports Dudley and Stephens’ case, killing the young boy for food was wrong under Kant’s perception. The two grown-up men deprived Parker of the right to live.
Dudley and Stephens’s act is unacceptable, and both were criminals. According to utilitarianism, promoting human happiness is essential, but, in this case, moral duty overshadowed their happiness (Bacik and Caroline para 11). Although there was increased happiness for the survivors and their families, the action can weaken the norm against murder. As per the Oxford University Press, people may tend to take the law into their hands for their happiness (Bacik and Caroline para 9). According to Kant, actions are right if they are guided by the principles of moral duty. He believed that a good individual is motivated by duty and not desire (Bojanowski 62). The two men were only concerned with their happiness and the agony their beloved ones would go through in case they died. Despite this, Parkers’ murder was unjustifiable and is considered immoral, as it was a selfish act.
References
Bacik, Ivana, and Caroline Madden. “Necessity Is No Defence For Murder”. The Irish Times, 2012.
Bojanowski, Jochen. “Kant On The Justification Of Moral Principles”. Kant-Studien, vol 108, no. 1, 2017, pp. 56-68. Walter De Gruyter Gmbh.
Falk Moore, Sally. “Sacrificing the Boy”. Nytimes.Com, 1984. Web.
Woodard, Christopher. Taking Utilitarianism Seriously. Oxford University Press, 2019.