8/6/2019 Speluncean Explorers Final

1/2

ASLAMPASHA KHAN

E2010021

8/6/2019 Speluncean Explorers Final

2/2

Speluncean explorers

Case Summary

The case tells the story of a group of spelunkers (cave-explorers) in the Commonwealth of

Newgarth, trapped in a cave by a landslide. As they approach the point of starvation, they

make radio contact with the rescue team. Engineers on the team estimate that the rescue willtake another10 days. The men describe their physical condition to physicians at the rescue

camp and ask whether they can survive another 10 days without food. The physicians think

this very unlikely. Then the spelunkers ask whether they could survive another 10 days if

they killed and ate a member of their party. The physicians reluctantly answer that they

would. Finally, the men ask whether they ought to hold a lottery to determine whom to kill

and eat. No one at the rescue camp is willing to answer this question. The men turn off theirradio, and sometime later hold a lottery, kill the loser, and eat him. When they are rescued,

they are prosecuted for murder, which in Newgarth carries a mandatory death penalty.

My Opinion on the Speluncean explorers Case.

From the facts of the case it is clear that it was not easy for the men to take such a drastic

step. They did not have any prior intention of killing Wetmore. Extraordinary situations call

for extraordinary measures. Under normal circumstances they would not have taken another

human beings life. They did it solely for the purpose of their own survival. If battling hunger

can be considered to be self-defence, then the act of the accused can come under the purview

of self-defence. The four had no intention to kill and was merely a means of survival. Only

after extensive deliberations, did they realise that they had no other option for survival, but tosacrifice the life of one of them and survive on his flesh.

What are the legal ethical and moral issues in the case?

From an ethical point of view, the four accused should not be tried at all.

However, while analysing this case from the purview of law they would be guilty of murder

as there existed both the mental and physical aspect of the crime.

From moral point If the men had not taken this extreme step there would have been five

deaths instead of one.

What would I choose?

I would choose to kill or to be killed and eat or eaten as I strongly support that saving 4 lives

at the cost of one is the best. Since we have already lost eleven lives to rescue four of them. Isit like we have risked 10 lives just to see these 4people dying in front of our eyes?