The Story of the Mignonette Essay Example

the Cape of Good Hope. They have made a few couple of stops en route for resting and obtaining victuals. On 3rd July somewhere about 1500 miles off the coast of Africa a big tragedy happened they have encountered strong winds and high seas which overpowered their boat and sank it.

The four men had enough time to gather other supplies and jump into a safe boat to survive the storm. That is the beginning of the scariest tragedy because they didn’t gather the most important thing that is water, and there is no more food left on the 19th day. Then the captain has decided to kill one of them for food supplies, Dudley suggested a lottery to draw lots to see who would die to safe the rest and he tell his mates that they existed a Sea Custom and that custom is that everyone has an equal chance of living or dying. Brooks did not like the lottery idea, so he didn’t want anything to do with him.

Even so the reason they decide to sacrifice one of his crew member that is Richard Parker is not because of this custom but is because Richard Parker has make himself ill by drinking too much sea water. So during that time Dudley think that is the only sensible way well Richard Parker is very sick that time with no family connections so it is reasonable to sacrifice him for the other three who had families of their own to support. Therefore the decision is made, Dudley and Stephens took the task in slaughtering the boy and eats what lefts from his

body.

In the end, Brooks too join in and took sustenance from the boy’s body. Four days later that is 26th/27th July a German Barque, the “Montezuma” carrying a cargo of nitrate from South America to Hamburg sail by and saw them. Their sorry plight was witnessed and their lives saved, but they insisted on taking the remains body of Richard Parker with them and give him a proper burial in Britain for his heroic act. On 6th September, The “Montezuma” sailed into Falmouth harbor to report their arrival to the Custom officers, Collector of Dues, Mr. Cheeseman.

Captain Simonson of the “Montezuma” hoped to deliver the survivors and then set sail to Hamburg, however the survivors that are Dudley, Stephan and Brooks explained the measures they took to survived then the situation changed. After that, Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. Brooks was not charged because he claimed not to have participated in the decision to kill Parker. Dudley and Stephens asserted that they were not guilty by reason of the common law defense of necessity, which was and continues to be a defense to property crimes.

The legal issue in the case was whether necessity should be recognized as a defense to murder. The panel of judges ruled that the common law defense of necessity does not apply to a murder charge, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality. Here comes the question, assume that you are the jury are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not. Would you vote them not guilty, what they did was

morally permissible? Or would you would vote guilty, what they did was morally wrong? From the defense of Dudley and Stephens, why would you morally exonerate them?

What are your reasons? I was not in Dudley and Stephens’ position. I don’t know the temptation they faced. Perhaps what they did was Amoral, because they were being indifferent to right or wrong based on the situation. They had experienced the starvation that I never experience, so I unable to judge them due to the situation. On the other hand, perhaps the ends don’t justify the means and we all know that we can’t kill an innocent person for food, no matter the circumstances. But, according to Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), the utilitarian philosophy states that the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility.

He meant utility as whatever produces pleasure or happiness and whatever prevents pain or sufferings. He said that human are governed by the feelings of pain and pleasure. We human beings like pleasuring and disliking pain. And so we should base morality, whether we are thinking what to do in our own lives, or whether as legislators or citizens, or thinking about what the law should be, the right thing to do, individually or collectively, is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness. This doctrine said that the right thing to do is whatever produces “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

There is a similar concept in recent Christian ethics called “situational ethics”; the definition of this ethic is sometimes other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations

if love is best served. If we look at the actions of the men in this light then they are certainly defensible. Both Dudley and Stephens claimed that they killed and ate Richard Parker. Due to Dudley and Stephens were under the extreme situation, they had no choice but to kill someone out of necessity. This is because we have to fulfill the basic physiological needs before other needs. Physiological needs refer to food, air, water, and etc.

Dudley and Stephens were faced with the situation without food and water. I believe that the fear of dying makes them do anything in order to survive for a short while longer to sustain hope of rescue. Maybe they got the motivation from their own lives and families to kill Richard Parker. The decision made might be unacceptable by others. But if majority in the same situation as them would have probably done the same thing. Perhaps, Dudley and Stephens think that the best decision that will benefit most of the people would be to kill Richard Parker, since he is the most weakened and ill, likely to die before them.

Furthermore, Dudley and Stephens had families to support; they had dependents, unlike Parker who was alone and also an orphan that had no dependents. Therefore, not only Dudley and Stephens got the benefit from the death of Richard Parker, but also their families in terms of financial support. They do not regard this as morally incorrect as the decision made was for the slogan, “the greatest good for the greatest number”, that Bentham’s utilitarianism summed up.

Jeremy Bentham says we have to consider

the welfare, utility, the happiness of everybody. We have to add it all up. So it's not just numbers three against one, it's also all of the family of Dudley, Stephens and Brooks at home. In fact the London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with them. As what the newspaper described Dudley and Stephens, if they weren't motivated by affection and concerned for their loved ones at home and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this.

According to utilitarian philosophy, it is well explained that Dudley and Stephen where they will kill one person in order to save more people. They have made the same decision as what some people or I will do. In summary, most people are just conscious about the concept of murder is murder, but murder is murder it is always wrong. This is because we are not standing in their shoes; we do not understand what they were suffering from. Therefore, I do not think they are guilty.