Dudley v Parker

8/7/2019 Dudley v Parker

1/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 1 of 7

Utilitarianism, as put by Bentham, is the idea which locates the moral worthiness of

an act in its tendency to maximize the net overbalancing sum total of pleasure over

pain for all parties concerned (Mautner). A utilitarian approach brings the best

outcome for the most number. The categorical imperative, or the ethics of duty, is

essentially prescriptive as it requires us to adhere to certain duties and rights

regardless of consequences. According to Kant, act only according to that maxim

whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant,

1997).

In the said case, four men were cast adrift on the sea when they finally reached the

stage whereby should they not eat or drink they would most probably die before being

rescued. Assume at that stage there was no sail in sight, nor any reasonable prospect

of relief. This essay aims to examine the possible solutions to the problem based on

Benthams utilitarian and Kants categorical imperative philosophies, and finally

decide on a most appropriate one.

Following Benthams principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number

and moral issues aside, intuitively we would choose to sacrifice one mans life for the

other three to feed on in order to survive. Benthams Hedonic Calculus says that we

should sum up all values of all the pleasures on one side, and those of all the pains on

the other, with respect to all the interests of all parties concerned. If there are more

pleasures than pains, the act is ought to be carried out (Bentham, 1789). In the said

case, the direct pleasures and pains appeared to be produced by killing one man are

three mens pleasures of survival and one mans pain of death. Subsequent pleasures

produced include three families pleasure of regaining loved ones and financial

support; subsequent pains include one familys pains of losing loved one and financial

support, and three mens guilt of murder. Here we dont account any of their friends

as stakeholder because it would be too hard to value and calculate. The utilitarian

calculation draws the conclusion that one mans suffering produces more happiness

for the other three. Furthermore, Parker the English boy is chosen since he was an


2/7


3/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 3 of 7

Utilitarianism appears to justify the killing of Parker in order for the three men to live

to be rescued. The advantages of utilitarianism as an ethical theory lie in its intuitive

appeal and its apparent scientific approach to ethical reasoning (JJC, 1973).

Utilitarianism has been so dominant in moral philosophy, that it is argued that it is the

starting point for all ethical considerations. In fact humans history is the process of

sacrificing the minorities for the greater happiness of the majorities. It may be that

there is a survival advantage for species that practice utilitarian approaches in that

elevating group over individual needs may help primitive communities thrive (P,

1981).

Despite of its output power, practicality and clarity, utilitarianism lacks empathy and

respect for individual rights. The boys fate was, instead of at his own disposal,

decided upon the fact of him being an orphan and the weakest of all. Would he want

to sacrifice his life to save the rest? By asking this question, we are touching on

Kants categorical imperative.

According to Kants third formulation of Categorical Imperative, all individuals ought

to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at

the same time as an end and never simply as a means (Kant, 1997). Individuals are

not just instruments for the sake of maximizing utility, however the community might

desire, because individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.

Individuals are autonomous and intrinsically valuable. They have rights and the

capacity for free, rational and moral choice. The cabin boy does not have any

obligation to sacrifice his life to save the rest, thus killing the boy is unjust , is

violating the boys rights and is not right.

However what if the boys consent was to be asked, and thereafter granted, would it

be morally right to kill? To answer this question we need to examine to what extent

the requesting for consent would amount to a form of coercion. Under the dire

circumstances of the said case, we can rightly assume that four of them are on the

verge of emotionally breakdown, thus desperation and temperament would have made


4/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 4 of 7

it nearly impossible for the consent to be asked in a nice way. The boy, being the

youngest, the weakest, and the most unresisting of all, would be coerced into agreeing

on donating his body. The boys freedom of choice is deprived and his dignity is

violated. Therefore with the predetermination to kill the boy, they no longer have the

rights to ask for consent in the first place, not to mention whether consent can be

granted or not. The previous judgement by utilitarianism is overthrown and killing

Parker is ought not to be carried out.

We are now facing a dilemma: utilitarians would have taken the boys life and save

the most number of lives to produce the greatest happiness, but Categorical

Imperative philosophers would defend the boy and say this is wrong, this is unjust,

and this is murder. However if they dont do anything, they will most probably all

die. Which one shall we act according to? Can we indeed strike a balance between the

two binding principles?

Lets now look at Kans first formulation of categorical imperative for a different

solution. According to Kant, act only according to that maxim whereby you can at

the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant, 1997). Categorical

imperative is a universal moral obligation. What were the obligations Captain Thomas

Dudley had? It could be the duty, in the case of shipwreck, as a man to preserve his

life for himself and his family, as a captain to protect his crew, and as an adult to

protect the boy. If Dudley was a utilitarian, and adhered strictly to his duties, he would

sacrifice his life so that his crew would live. This solution seems to be just perfect.

There appears to be no question to whether it is morally qualified to become a

universal law; it maximizes utility of the society in the long-run, because should

everyone under all circumstances sacrifice their needs or lives for the greater good,

there would be absolute harmony in our society. However, something is wrong. This

is irrational according to Kants third formulation of man being an end in himself.

Kant believed that man is not beholden to divine command or superstition, but rather

a notion of secular, rational morality (Michael Robertson, Oct 2007). In the said case,


5/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 5 of 7

a more rational thinking suggests to take the life of the boy. Assume Dudley died and

the rest fed on his body, there was a high probability that the boy could have died

anyway because he was extremely weakened by famine and had drunk seawater

which was fatal in such situation. That Dudleys sacrifice would have been

unnecessary. This argument leans towards utilitarianism and again violates the boys

rights.

Besides the discussion on obligations and duties, the key issue of any morality in

Kants eyes is that of universalisability (Michael Robertson, Oct 2007). An act is

morally right if other people in similar situations can act accordingly. We could

resolve to see what people do in similar situations and apply that solution to the said

case. Assume four patients are in need of different organ transplant, however,

currently there is no prospect of any organ donor, nor any medical technology that

could substitute. Common practice of getting an organ is from a voluntary donor.

Assume similar plights establish strong empathetic bonds among the patients that they

may voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first would

donate the organs to the rest. In this way the greatest happiness is produced and no

ones dignity is violated. Same solution might apply to the cabin boy case: four of

them voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first would

allow the rest to feed on his body to sustain.

This looks like a good option, however some may argue what if they couldnt wait

until the person dies naturally. The three men might most probably go on to kill the

boy anyway. While deciding on what one should do in such situation based on

morality, we need understand the limitations of moral philosophies. Moral

philosophies only tell us what is ought to be done, rather than what is to be done.

In the British High Court Judgement of the cabin boy case, it says we are often

compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which

we couldnot ourselves satisfy. The said case might be an exception to morality

because of its unusual degree of necessity involved in performing an act.


6/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 6 of 7

Self-preservation being the highest desire and duty of all, when human are on the

verge of dying, the rest moral obligations just seem surreal. It is always easier to

judge by law than by morality and say murder is forbidden under all circumstances,

especially in the said case. It is because law is strong and unequivocal, whereas our

moral compass is wavering and is easily influenced by compassion and our

relationship with the party concerned. The discrepancy between law and morality

reminds us of the limitations of men, of humanity. This might be the reason behind the

commutation by the Crown. The law has yielded, hasnt it? Therefore as rational

beings, the four men should aim to act in the way to preserve each others dignity so

far as it is attainable by their efforts.

In conclusion, despite of utilitarianisms output power, one usually has to abandon it

when the act concerned is as wrongful as murder. Most people favor the categorical

imperative approach because it values mens dignity, however, adopting it

unconditionally would result in zero survival. Held in such an ethical dilemma, I aim

to resolve to strike a balance between the two philosophies by giving this option: four

of them voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first

would allow the rest to feed on his body to sustain. However given this seemingly

right option, we need to understand the limitations of moral philosophies which might

not apply under dire circumstances like that in the said case.

Word count: 1993


7/7

HE JIAXIN T 19

Page 7 of 7

Reference

BakerJ.Dennis. (2009). The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law. Faculty of

Law, King's College London.

BenthamJeremy. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

JJCSmart. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambrigde University Press.

KantImmanuel. (1997). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge:Cambridge

University Press.

Mautner, T. (n.d.). Consequententialism . Retrieved 10 22, 2010, from Utilitarianism Resources:

Consequentialism

Michael RobertsonMorris and Garry WalterKirsty. (Oct 2007). Overview of psychiatric ethics

V:utilitarianism and the ethics. Australasian Psychiatry.

PSinger. (1981). The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. New York: Farrar, Straus and.

The Wreck of the Whaleship Essex. (BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A671492

W.Kymlicka. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Documents

Dudley v Parker