Spel Case
The Case of the Spelunkers: Justifiable Murder
Student
San Jose State University
When presented with the crucial decision of life or death, people should do everything in their power to survive, no matter the cost. While on an excursion of spelunking, four friends find themselves trapped in a cave with limited amounts of food and water. In order to increase their chances of survival, one of the friends suggest drawing straws to see who will be killed and eaten for the benefit of the group. After killing the friend who was left with the shortest straw, the remaining spelunkers are rescued a couple weeks later and shared their story with their community. The friends are soon met with charges of homicide and disapproval from the public for their lack of moral awareness. This essay will argue that murder is justifiable when the reality of grim conditions exists. Consequences from such an action do not come to mind when decisions are based solely on emotions and not made with morals and ethical obligations set by society. The spelunkers depended on the murder of one of their friends in order to survive. In a normal situation, these friends would never purposely hurt, let alone kill, one another. The intent of the person killing is something to consider. When confronted with the dilemma of having limited resources, killing each other was the only option for food. The special circumstance these friends were faced with, led to a violent act of survival. The spelunkers waited a week after being trapped before settling on this irrevocable decision. Not only is murder an act the friends would not normally commit, but cannibalism is something they would not practice either. The thought of eating human flesh to the average person is not desirable. But when put in extenuating circumstances, the reasonable person would do anything in order to live. The immense amount of pressure the friends experienced in making this
Student
San Jose State University
When presented with the crucial decision of life or death, people should do everything in their power to survive, no matter the cost. While on an excursion of spelunking, four friends find themselves trapped in a cave with limited amounts of food and water. In order to increase their chances of survival, one of the friends suggest drawing straws to see who will be killed and eaten for the benefit of the group. After killing the friend who was left with the shortest straw, the remaining spelunkers are rescued a couple weeks later and shared their story with their community. The friends are soon met with charges of homicide and disapproval from the public for their lack of moral awareness. This essay will argue that murder is justifiable when the reality of grim conditions exists. Consequences from such an action do not come to mind when decisions are based solely on emotions and not made with morals and ethical obligations set by society. The spelunkers depended on the murder of one of their friends in order to survive. In a normal situation, these friends would never purposely hurt, let alone kill, one another. The intent of the person killing is something to consider. When confronted with the dilemma of having limited resources, killing each other was the only option for food. The special circumstance these friends were faced with, led to a violent act of survival. The spelunkers waited a week after being trapped before settling on this irrevocable decision. Not only is murder an act the friends would not normally commit, but cannibalism is something they would not practice either. The thought of eating human flesh to the average person is not desirable. But when put in extenuating circumstances, the reasonable person would do anything in order to live. The immense amount of pressure the friends experienced in making this