Reference no: EM133355742

This is an excerpt from a case decided by the Queen's Bench (Queen of England, that is) in 1884.

Three men and a small boy had been traveling on yacht that sank 1,000 miles off the African coast. As their ship was sinking, they got into a small boat in which they drifted for 20 days. They had not eaten in 8 days, had no water, and no signs of rescue. The three men argued among themselves about killing one of the survivors so the others could eat his body and survive. Of course, they were talking of killing the boy. One of the men refused to participate, but the other two agreed their actions were necessary if they were to survive. On the 20th day, one of the men went to the boy, told him what was about to happen, then put a knife to his throat and killed him. All three men ate from the boy's body.

Four davs later the men were rescued. The two men who agreed to the killing were later tried for murder in England. Their defense was one of necessity.

ISSUE: A true conflict of ethics exists here. Was the killing of the boy justified based on the circumstances or was it murder?