To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
In the infamous case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens, the morally contentious act of killing the cabin boy, Richard Parker, raises profound ethical questions. Examining this case through the lenses of Aristotelian ethics, Hobbesian ethics, Utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics offers insight into the complexities surrounding the moral permissibility of such an extreme action.
The murder of Richard Parker cannot be justified morally, even when faced with the dire circumstances on the lifeboat. Aristotle's virtue ethics posits that a virtuous life, guided by principles of morality, leads to happiness.
While Aristotle acknowledges that not all actions need to be virtuous, he emphasizes the importance of finding a mean between extremes. In the case of Dudley and Stephens, the intentional taking of a life goes beyond the acceptable mean. Aristotle contends that the ability to reason and make choices allows individuals to strike a balance between morality and evil, achieving a state of happiness.
Despite the crew's desperate situation and the imminent threat to their lives, Aristotle's philosophy maintains that murder is never an acceptable course of action.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Moral
4.7 (348)
“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”
Even if Richard Parker had consented to his own death, Aristotle's emphasis on living a virtuous life rejects such extreme decisions. Waiting for the natural death of the cabin boy, according to Aristotle, would have allowed the crew to navigate a more virtuous path, preserving the sanctity of life even in the face of adversity.
Thomas Hobbes, known for his Leviathan, offers a different perspective through his ethics grounded in the state of nature and self-preservation.
Hobbes argues that in the absence of societal order, individuals are driven by a fundamental instinct to preserve their own lives. Dudley and Stephens' decision to kill Richard Parker aligns with Hobbesian ethics in the sense that it can be seen as an act of self-preservation.
From a Hobbesian standpoint, the crew's primary concern was their survival, and the extreme circumstances on the lifeboat justified actions that might be deemed morally reprehensible in ordinary circumstances. Hobbes contends that in the state of nature, life is "nasty, brutish, and short," and individuals are compelled to take extreme measures to ensure their survival. While murder remains ethically questionable, Hobbesian ethics provides a lens through which the crew's actions can be understood as a desperate response to the harsh reality of their situation.
Utilitarianism, as championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their contribution to the overall happiness or pleasure of the majority. Applying utilitarian principles to the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens raises the question of whether sacrificing one life for the greater good of the remaining crew is morally justifiable.
From a Utilitarian perspective, the crew's decision to kill Richard Parker can be seen as a utilitarian calculus aimed at maximizing overall happiness. The imminent threat of starvation for all members of the crew could lead to a greater collective suffering. Utilitarianism compels individuals to make decisions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number. However, critics argue that this perspective risks overlooking the intrinsic value of an individual life and raises concerns about the ethical implications of treating a person as a means to an end.
Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative asserts that individuals should act according to principles that can be universalized without contradiction. Applying Kantian ethics to the case at hand requires assessing whether the crew's action of murdering Richard Parker can be considered a morally permissible universal law.
From a Kantian standpoint, the intentional killing of an innocent person cannot be universally justified. Kant emphasizes the importance of treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. The crew's decision to sacrifice Richard Parker for their own survival contradicts Kantian ethics, as it treats the cabin boy merely as a means to an end. Kantian principles would demand alternative actions that respect the inherent dignity and rights of every individual, even in the face of extreme circumstances.
In conclusion, the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens presents a moral quandary that invites scrutiny through various ethical lenses. Aristotle's virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of finding a mean between extremes, rejecting the intentional taking of life even in dire circumstances. Hobbesian ethics, rooted in self-preservation, offers a perspective that aligns with the crew's desperate actions on the lifeboat. Utilitarianism prompts consideration of the greater good, questioning whether sacrificing one life for the survival of the majority is ethically justifiable. Kantian ethics, on the other hand, highlights the categorical imperative and the universalization of moral principles, condemning the intentional killing of an innocent individual.
While each ethical theory provides unique insights, the case underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the moral permissibility of extreme actions in the face of survival. It challenges individuals to navigate the delicate balance between preserving life and upholding ethical principles, prompting a deeper reflection on the complexities of morality in exceptional circumstances.
Moral Dilemmas at Sea: Analyzing Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens. (2017, Feb 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/re-morality-in-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
