Im going to be doing something different from now; recently, I discovered my hidden passion for writing about morally complex criminal/legal/medical cases and I want to use this as a platform to post them. Im titling these posts under the series "The Gray Zone", get it? Cause these cases aren't black or white and lie somewhere in the middle. Anyways, this is the inital post that will show up under this; here goes nothing.
Should Stephen and Dudley be held accountable on the charge of murder of Parker as a response to self preservation? Adhering to utilitarianism if the cost is comparably less to the outcome, following through with it must be ethically reasonable. In our case, the 4 people on the boat were at the brink of death, in order to ensure survival they murdered Parker, the weakest and youngest among them, to be later consumed as a form of sustenance when no other option was left—sacrificing one life to save three.
Reasons as to why this may be justifiable is Parker was weak, he would have been a liability under dire circumstances. As per his own volition during the time at sea he consumed large amounts of seawater despite the warnings which lead to a weakened and delirious state rendering him semi comatose, expending future available resources would be a waste considering he needed medical assistance to survive. Under ideal circumstances where his death could be justified is if he were to have lost his life under natural circumstance instead as a result of contrivance.
The case can be viewed through the lens of the two versions of the well known trolley problem.
Case 1 - The switch
In our first version, the trolley is set to kill 5 people tied to the tracks, the driver is given the choice to switch the lever to take the life of one person on another track if he were to consciously switch the lever. The circumstances, here, are foisted upon him and are not of his choosing, partaking in the switch of the lever would be a choice of exigency. In our case the environmental situation, stranded in sea, can be considered as an event thrust upon them. Stephen and Dudley's choice of killing one to save the three on board would be considered an act of self preservation under dire circumstances. The key difference between the trolley problem and our case that we need to make here is that in the trolley problem the act of murder was ineluctable whereas in our case no one is forced to take the life of another.
Case 2 - The bridge
In this version, you are on top of a bridge, a bystander, with the choice of pushing one person from the bridge to prevent 5 people from being killed on the tracks. Would the person who chooses to indulge in pushing them over be in the wrong? Legally, yes. You play god and decide to commit the act of taking someone's life under the assumption that saving the other 5 would be the better outcome when no one is in the position to do so. In our case, Stephen and Dudley's decision to kill Parker would be similar—choosing to actively participate in the murder of one person for the apparent benefit of the three.
A case I would like to make in saying that the defendants should be charged for murder is that despite 4 people being on the boat, subjected to similar circumstances, only two thought that killing one would be the best decision. If an event objectively affects society in the same way, then pursuing the act would be forgiven, because in doing so we act according to our natural wiring, but that is not the case here as Brooks restrained himself from partaking in the act of Parker's murder nor was it his idea to do so.
This case is undeniably extreme. The killing was intentional and planned. It cannot be classified as self-defense, because Parker posed no immediate threat. Yet to ignore the circumstances entirely would be to ignore the reality of human fragility under the pressure of death. The appropriate conclusion, then, is that the act remains murder, but the punishment should acknowledge the desperation that shaped it.
A reduced sentence, rather than an absolution, best aligns with both justice and humanity.