Mike Mertsock

• September 2001
• Ethics

Background

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens took place in 19th century England. The two defendants, sailors of the royal navy, found themselves adrift on a lifeboat after their ship went down. The other party of this case, Parker, was a much younger man; the defendants were older with families and other commitments. Having the misfortune of being completely helpless, away from any shipping lanes, with nothing to eat, Dudley and Stephens eventually decided to kill Parker, who was already on the verge of death, to save themselves. They knew there was little chance of being rescued before they, without killing parker, all would have died.

Soon afterward, a ship did come through. They were picked up and soon were in court, tried for murder. The court ruled against Dudley and Stephens and they were sentenced for murder. Presumably it was the difficulty of the case that moved parliament to lighten the sentence a short time later. This paper analyzes the case in light of the ethics proposed by John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism), Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant.

The Paper

The case of The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens challenges the concepts of justified killing and the right of a man to live. It presents a conflict of three men’s most basic needs, rights, and passions. A convincing argument is possible for both sides of the case, as there is ample evidence in favor of both sides, but the prosecution and defense also rely on speculation and dependence upon chance. A more abstract approach to the case, analyzing it in the perspective of the ethics of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant, may offer clear answers to the guilt of the two men charged. However, the positions of the three philosophers differ, as do their conclusions.

Mill differs most from the other two philosophers, in both his approach and his conclusion about the case. His views on utility and sacrifice create a point of view set above the parties of the case, judging their actions in view of society as a whole. Utilitarianism, the philosophy he supports, views happiness as the final end of human endeavor, so the morality of an action depends upon its tendency to promote the happiness of the individual or society. This is the question that drives the Utilitarian analysis of this case: does the killing of Parker succeed in, or tend toward, an increase in the aggregate happiness of the group?

To begin at a smaller scope, we can view the killing as a sacrifice, raising the Utilitarian question of whether the sacrifice was made for the good or in vain. Mill believes sacrificing one’s own happiness for that of others is the “highest virtue” (Arthur 36). However, if the sacrifice is in vain (not increasing happiness), it is worthless, and in this case, surely a punishable act. The defense seemed to convincingly argue that Parker would die anyway, and his sacrifice gave the others their only chance for life. They had no reason to believe that they would be rescued in the next few critical days. Thus, they were sacrificing the hopeless life of one man for the future lives of two others. Happiness would surely increase by this act.

This rationale suffers when one considers alternate outcomes to the lifeboat’s journey. If a ship arrived immediately after Parker’s death, he could have survived if he had the chance, and the other two would not have needed his death to survive. Parker’s sacrifice would be in vain. On the other hand, if no ship ever appeared, there would rise the inevitable issue of sacrificing the next weakest for the good of the remainder, and then the next. With such a cycle, remarks the court, the argument of the defense would justify the death of two or three men for the life of one (6). The good of such sacrifices lies in doubt here, especially if the last survivor dies at sea.

John Stuart Mill’s theory arrives at the conclusion that the sacrifice may be worthy if there were more certainty to the fate of the survivors. The uncertainty that exists, though, permits many feasible alternative ends, where the sacrifice would not increase the good, but be in vain.

Thomas Hobbes presents a social contract theory that bypasses the effects of this case alone and makes an argument for precedent, that is, how the judging of this case would affect justice in future cases. His theory of a social contract of trust enforced by law shows that making an exception in this case allows for the decay of the contract and its effectiveness. This jeopardizes order and justice.

Hobbes’ thought experiment of the “state of nature” shows that all men are essentially equal and each man has an absolute right to self-preservation. In this case, if the state of nature were the rule, each man would have had an equal claim to survival, and a judgment of justice concerning the killing would not be possible. Hobbes effectively throws out the claim that Parker was best suited to be sacrificed.

However, a state of order exists, so the state of nature is not the ruling factor in this case. Instead, the social contract, the covenant he believes to exist among all members of society, is the determinant. The justice of the killing lies in whether a break of this covenant has occurred. The law, or covenant, in question is that one must not murder another individual. Hobbes would argue that this can only be a break of that covenant, and is thus unjust.

Impartiality is the rule and the reason why the killing must be unjust. It is required in Hobbes’ philosophy because, if one makes exceptions to the covenants of society, the order upheld by trust enforced by law breaks down. Trust cannot exist without the threat of punishment for the breach of trust; this is why trust does not exist in the state of nature. Beginning a precedent of exception to the general law would undermine the ability of people to trust each other and to trust the government to enforce the law. The court must find the men guilty, because an acquittal would undermine the foundation of society.

Though Immanuel Kant’s view of society and of the nature of morality and law differs greatly from Hobbes, a Kantian interpretation of this case offers a parallel argument and conclusion. The standard of justice here is the categorical imperative, in its two forms: treat others as ends and never as means only, and do only what you could will to be a universal law. With Kant’s ethics, the defendants needed to ask themselves whether their actions were congruent with the categorical imperative. The killing clearly does not follow either formulation.

First, Kant’s argument would follow that Dudley and Stephens clearly were not treating Parker as an end, but as a means only. Parker did not know about the plan for his sacrifice; he was intentionally misled. Parker’s death served no purpose except the gain of Dudley and Stephens. Second, the sailors could not possibly will their act of killing to become a universal law. The statement “It is only moral to kill the weaker one if everyone should kill the weaker one” would have to be valid. Such a proposition is ridiculous, so the killing cannot possibly become a universal law.

Since the killing does not follow the categorical imperative, it is immoral. Exceptions are unallowable in this case because a question of morality in Kant’s philosophy is a question of the categorical imperative. The duty the defendants faced was to accept their own death as the only moral choice.

The incredible complexity of human life challenges the greatest judges, even the greatest philosophers, to find fairness and justice. Even a single action in the isolated world of a lifeboat lost at sea can raise questions of immense scope and importance to morality. One finds that even there, a person’s actions can have the power to rock the very foundation of society.