ok, ok, so I bet law students have heard this one already. The example i give here is of a true event that took place a few centuries ago.
Three men are on ship.
Two are middle-aged and one is a teenage boy.
Ship sinks.
Three persons are now on open sea in tiny rowboat with no food.
Three persons begin 2 starve 2 death.
Two middle aged men plot together when boy is asleep.
Next day they tell boy: " Sorry my lad, but your time has come" and stab him 2 death.
They drink his blood and eat his flesh to survive.
So technically it is murder. But some call it survival. Which is better: for one to die so 2 can live or for all 3 to die? I am not sure if the men were found guilty of the crime and punished or not.
to me this incidant questions our humanity. If we were purely animals we would say it is survival of the fittest or evilest or whatever and just eat each other. But being humans we are taught about laws and to respect other human life and to not be savages. It is a very interesting problem to me.
personally I think everyone on the boat should just have died because what gives one person the right to live and another the right to die? We are all equal right? Of course i asked some people this question and one person straight out told me he would have killed the boy 4 food, too. Scary stuff!!! From the looks of things I hope you all never get stuck on foodless boats!!! Of course if Mother Teresa was on the boat she would probably have sacrificed herself to be food. But I suppose few people would choose this option.
So it really is a difficult question if you think about it carefully. What do you all think about it? Are we really just animals in this situation who have the right to kill 4 survival? Or are we humans who should keep our morals in this situation? Or does no one have the right 2 speculate since we have not been in those circumstances? weird stuff
Hi Sylvia, im guessing that you’r quite tierd of “dog-eat-dog”, but girl, remember that this sort of situation will never happen to anyone! This sort of situation is very freakish.
They had more streing then the boy, and could destroy him for their own cause or need, yet if two boys ate a man, their preserved lives would last more years then the men eating the boy. Stabing him to death sounds like fun (sarcasm). If i died from starvation it would not feel as bad as my souls anguish at treachery from my own species.
The dog does not have to eat the dog, because humans are more like ants in their relation to one another. We never realy have to kill anyone, and never will.
What happen if we take the “its either them or me” principal down to the level of… want instead of need… Suddenly we see “greed” as the wants of one are put above the needs of the other, and then comes all harm from one man to the other.
You know… i would say put your needs above the needs of a stranger, but put your wants below his needs. Dont take shit from anybody, dont hesitate to help people. Thats my view^
Its a complex principal that effects a person’s entire life.
Charity mixed with rebelion and a will to fight.
(i hope that you get to read this )
When a ship finally pulled up to the lifeboat, the two remaining men were so bent upon fighting over a human bone, they didn’t even notice, or care, that they were rescued.
on the other hand, I guess if all 3 were going to die anyway then it does not really make a difference if they kill the boy. Also they relieve him of his suffering.
yeah, Dan, I feel the same: I would rather die of starvation than die from anguish caused by others. I actually asked someone who used to be very anorexic if starvation was painful. She said it wasn’t, only that she had trouble sleeping. So I think it’s not the pain but the idea of dying that drove these people to cannibalism or insanity.
it’s impossible for us to say what we would do in that sort of situation as we sit at the computer and read this thread with a cookie and a glass of milk. I ask what was the boy doing on the boat with the two men anyway? Was the boy a stranger to the two men? Seems kind of weird if that were the case. If the boy was the son, or relative, of one of the men then eating the boy would be wrong; the father or guardian should have sacrificed his life, or at least the other man should have so that the family could stay together. Another possibility is that the two men knew the boy and were friends with his parents. Even in this case it seems that it would be wrong to eat the boy. I am pretty sure that the men in this situation were found guilty because being that the boy was much younger, and had more of a life to live, then it should have been one of the men who were sacrificed.
Well, William Webber, he probably was a stranger. Lots of times people needed someone on the boat who could make food ( ha ha ha no pun intended ) or hoist the sails the whole time or whatever ( for payment obviously ).
When I watched History Channel on DStv they said the men were eventually trialed and set free. But someone else I know ( law student ) said they did the case in class and that the men were eventually hung. So if anyone knows the true outcome please inform me.
The murder can just be seen as survival, but according to law survival is sometimes illegal. If you need a kidney transplant A.S.A.P and you are number 224 on the waiting list 4 fresh kidneys, you can’t just go and rip somebody’s kidney out of his body, can you? What I am trying 2 say is that there are similar situations to the boat one in modern society where people just accept death.
I wonder if this survival cannibalism took place in Nazi concentration camps, too. Those people were really hungry. The guards could have intervered, though. Remember, technically, the Nazi’s were just trying to survive as a " species", too. They were hell of a poor when Hitler came to power. But the slaughters were not moral and agianst law, plus the rapes and weird body experiments were really grosse and uncalled for. That law student i know who said he would eat the boy also said what hitler did was right and cool. sick. I am quite afraid of this person actually.
Sadly, the laws of nature and the universe teach us that slaughterings are correct if you look at nature. But my motto is: the universe is cruel enough to us, let us not be cruel to each other, too. AND THANK GOD FOR THE LAW SYSTEM…
This here is an excelent point that sheds new light on the entire question/principal. The two men were able to over power the boy, but the person in need of a kidney is in no position to overpower anyone. Suddenly the mentality changes… If people can get away with somthing, then they will most likely do it.
Fuck yah! You ever had one of those days were you were as-horny-as-hell? Or have you ever been increadably angery and destroyed/attacked somthing? Strong desire = desporation = madness. Seek emotional balance my friends.
@ William Webber:
Strange how someone becomes human as soon as they are you’r “friend”, and friendship is mere understanding. Hate is a poor substitute for understanding, but what an effect this substitute has on humanity.
(“you’r” = general humans, not you personaly William)
I think my post was a little misunderstood, and at the same time inadequate. I did not discuss the situation as if the boy were a stranger because I thought that would most likely not have been the case, but, I suppose it very well could have been. On the other hand all I was saying was that if the child was a relative of yours, not necessarily just a friend, it would seem as though you might be under some moral obligation to allow the younger life to live…that was my point.
On a larger hand now, considering that we all die eventually, I guess it doesn’t really matter who one kills - the difference will be unnoticeable anyway. From a purely medical standpoint, it is just disburdening of an irksome load of suffering, is that right ?..
It is always easy to apply “what if’s” to moral situations like this, but I find that there are always more variables than anyone coul dpossible consider:What if the boy was crippled, what if the boy was wounded, what if he was in the prime of his youth, what if…You can’t base your conclusion to this situation on a what if.
That Fish,
You seem to have a confused idea of what survival of the species means. It means that nature will remove the inferior, the weak, from the gene pool thus allowing the superior, the strong, to contribute to it, this is with the ultimate goal of the species surviving, that is to not become exctinct. Of course humans screw this up by thinking, but that aside in the case of the the two men and the boy, I am not saying that the boy had nothing to offer to the gene pooll, it furthered the survival of our species thus allowing a greater contribution to the gene pool etc. As far as this goes it is not an act that is unique to humans, certain animals will eat their young etc. To call nature and the universe cruel is unfounded, that is a judgement. To say that nature and the universe teaches us that slaughtering is correct , I would have to disagree. Considering that nature’s goal is the survival of the species slaughtering does not contribute to the gene pool. It might be said that war provides a situation for the strong to survive, however, weapons of mass destruction and other technology unbalance that. In the case of the holocaust it would only be contributing to our species if you consider the people being killed as inferior, since the slaughtering was generally indiscriminate. The nazis were not a species by the way nor were they a nation, they were a political group that came into power try not to confuse such things.
While I agree with part of your motto that, we should not be cruel to our fellow humans. I find that cruelty is subjective it points towards malicious thoughts, intents of inflicting pain and suffering. The act committed on the boat was not “cruel” therefore.
As for the law system, isn’t your friend who had no qualms with either the cannibalism or the holocaust planning on becoming a componant of the law system.
Scevola, I did not say that in general everyone should kill everyone because everyone is going to die anyway. The men on boat would not have resorted to the killing if they were not seriously starving and probably only had a day or two to live. So boy was probably going to die in few days’ time as well.
The nazi’s were not a species of their own. my IQ is not so insufficient that I would seriously think they are a unique species of humans. But to them they were somehow so special that they considered themselves a seperate, different group that had to survive at the cost of others. " Hi, you have exactly the same anatomy as us but you are not a Nazi, sorry, it’s time to die…" It’s the same as a group of animals in the wild who eliminate another group, say, because the other group is threatening territory or something.
The universe is good and evil. You will say it is a nice balance, that the universe is not such a bad place. But it is a bad place because it still contains evil. Plus, if you tasted that evil you will know what i mean. If the wonderful cute universe determines that you have to die of cancer at the age of 18 or whatever you will feel a bit less enthusiastic about its wonders. Or will you run around singing and jumping in the rain with happiness and understanding and appreciation of this magnificent universe we are controlled by? ( but hey, if anyone does this I think that is very brave and cute. )
And about that law student… he is not going to take over the entire law system. it is a bit scary that he studies law though, especially since he has commited small crimes already ( shop lifting, assault… ) in the past.
But he is studying law 4 the money.
Scevola, I would not have introduced this quote if I had the answer. I was looking for other opinions because this is a difficult situation. I am open to different opinions, even if they are my own. I would have wanted everyone to die in a circle of love and care on that boat, not to just devour each other like a bunch of animals after having been brought up as humans. But maybe this opinion is wrong?
Anyway, I think if someone decided to go out to sea he or she should have known how extremely likely this situation was to happen. it was common knowledge in those days that a ship at sea was a big life risk. So these people should have thought about keeping a big fat load of food supplies near the life boat, plus a blanket or something. maybe they did this anyway…who knows…
I conclude: to each his own. I think all the possibilities were correct because ultimately the universe allows them all. If you want to sacrifice yourself for food, go ahead. If you want everyone to die, go ahead. If you want to eat the other person go ahead. If you would rather want the sharks to eat you, go ahead and jump in if they come along the boat. If there are no laws there are no laws to break.
that fish,
I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence, allow me to rephrase. You can not say that the nazi’s were just trying to survive as species because their group is different from a species. Which is still unclear so I will elaborate, I would consider comparing a nation or country to a species accurate enough. I suppose you could say that most societies could be compared to a species. The germans were trying to survive which was why the Nazi’s came to power, but the nazi agenda was different from the germans. Like I said earlier humans screw up natural selction by thinking and making decisions and so on. My IQ is not so low that I would take your statement literally. The point was that I disagree with the comparison.
By your argument the universe is a good place because it has good in it, just as it is bad because it has evil in it. Don’t think that just because you suffer no one else suffers as greatly, (on a side note: have you been diagnosed with cancer or a terminal disease?) I maintain my health but I do not pretend that everything in my life is something I want to repeat. I have been hungry and I have been on the streets before, and I can not say that Universe or God or anything else was kind to me, but I do not think it cruel. I can not say that it is fair that other people are born rich or in perfect bodies. Nor can say that it is fair that people contract HIV or Cancer. Both pessimism and optimism are prejudice against life, so I reject your statement that the universe is cruel. You are neither martyr nor victim, you blame your circumstance on some devious supreme being which is obviously not god, and rancor in your hate for it. You are very in touch with your morals and I respect that, but your views of the world seem skewed and bitter, and your knowledge of the world little. Apply your IQ to the subject and expand your knowledge and reach a conclusion that isn’t based on some poor hand of fate.
come on why would you die of starvation if you dont have to? why would you let somebody else die of starvation if you dont have to? the only problem with killing them quickly and relatively painlessly is that you dont know that a helicopter isnt five seconds away from saving all three of you.
if you know for sure that letting him live will result in all three of you dying a horrible death and that killing him will result in two of you living just fine, youd be stupid to let all three of you die slowly. youd be better off stabbing all three of you to death than starving. and if we can assume that the adults are the least fragile, their choice of victim was good as well.
Suddenly we see “greed” as the wants of one are put above the needs of the other, and then comes all harm from one man to the other.