Law And Morality Essay Research Paper Law

Law And Morality Essay, Research Paper

Law and Morality

It is not an everyday occurrence that someone must decide the fate of another’s

life. The dilemma of making a decision that someone must die in order for the

others to survive, can obviously be troubling. The process in which the

termination of one’s life may be easy to make, but to justify that decision is

the most difficult one. This paper is given a situation in which a decision of

taking one’s life is essential. The situation is that a nuclear war has occurred,

which has destroyed most of the centres of civilization. There are five people

that are that have escaped death by finding their way to a nuclear bunker. These

five people consist of a pregnant woman; an old man, who is a retired judge; two

teenagers – a fourteen-year-old boy and a sixteen-year-old girl; and a young and

healthy woman who is a doctor. They all have been there for fifteen days and

they must remain there for an additional fifteen days before they can be rescued.

The problem is that although there are five of them in the bunker, there is only

enough food for four people to survive for the remaining fifteen days. Rationing

the food will not be of any use, because all will die with such a plan. The only

way for most of the survivors to live for the next fifteen days is for one to

die. Somehow they have contacted an outside source to advise them on the

questions of “Who shall die.”, and “How should the decision of choosing the

person be carried out.” These are all very difficult questions to answer, but

something must be done. It is unlikely that someone will voluntarily allow

someone to kill them so that the others may live, that is why another form of

decision making must be allowed. The best way to do so is probably by that

outside aid to suggest that they try drawing lots. For example whoever pulls the

shortest straw is the one who dies. With no time to procrastinate, this would

seem the most time efficient and fairest way to choose who will die. Of course a

reason must be provided to the person who had drawn the shortest straw, and that

is the objective of this paper. This essay will explain how the decision will be

made that will ultimately take one of the survivor’s lives to save the remaining

four people. From that explanation of the decision made, it will attempt to

justify it. This paper proposes to explain and justify the decision by using

legal tools such as Law and Morality, the Meta Rule, and The Doctrine of

Necessity. The advice provided on how to carry out the unfortunate death of an

innocent person may not be a “right” one, but perhaps it will be legally and

morally justified.

Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue

and a moral issue associated with the predicament. The reason law has a part in

the situation is that after the decision is made, it will be examined legally

and must be accountable for its consequences. Morality has its place too,

because many will find it morally wrong to take one’s life despite any

justification.

….there is some connection between law and morality, but the two are

clearly not identical. First, morality is only concerned with right or wrong,

with the good and evil; law is concerned with lots of things on which there is

no right and wrong – procedures for land registration, incorporation and so on.

Second, morality is to some extent uncertain and a matter for each individual,

law tries to be objective, written down in black and white and there for all to

see. Third, morality often leaves things vague and subject to general principle,

law goes into specifics.1

From that description of law and morality, it is obvious how they relate

to the issue here. When the time comes for one of the five people in the bunker

eventually to die, it must be legally justified. The reason for this is that

murder is illegal, unless legally justified.2 On the other hand, reasons for the

killing must be provided to put to ease those who question the dilemma in

accordance to morality. Since law and morality are equally important and both

are evenly delicate when dealing with this issue, advising the survivors on what

to do will not be easy. Pleasing everybody is impossible, whether it is examined

from a legal viewpoint or a moral one. However, if the situation is analysed

with both the law and morality issues in mind, there may be a chance that many

will see some sort of vindication behind the decision to kill someone.

One example that can probably create a good foundation to better explain the

complexity of the given situation, is that of the case of R. v. Dudley and

Stephens. A basic summary of the case is as follows: Thomas Dudley, Edward

Stephens, another man by the name of Brooks, and Richard Parker, who was a boy

in his late teens, were the crew of an English yacht.

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать