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. All four of them were cast
away in a storm 1,600 miles away from the Cape of Good hope. This boat was not
supplied with any water or any food, except a few canned vegetables that lasted
them a duration of three days. Being lost at sea, with no food or water, they
needed to find someway to keep themselves alive so that they could live long
enough for them to be rescued. Many days went by, and within that time they had
not eaten or drank anything. Both Dudley and Stephens suggested to Brooks that
someone be sacrificed to save the rest, Brooks disagreed, and they never told
the boy of the idea. The next suggestion by Dudley and Stephens was that they
should draw lots to see who should sacrifice their life to save the others,
again Brooks refused and they did not let the boy in on the plan. Eventually
the decision that if no vessel were to come around the next day, they should
kill the boy. This decision, yet again, came from Dudley and Stephens. Again
Brooks disagreed and the boy was never consulted. A day passed and no vessel was
in sight. Dudley went to the boy, who was sleeping, and killed him. They fed
upon the body of the boy and drank his blood for the following four days when
they were finally rescued. After being returned to shore Dudley and Stephens
were brought to court, put on trial, and lastly sentenced to death by the court.
This decision was eventually brought down to life imprisonment, but then they
released Dudley and Stephens after six months.3The case of R v. Dudley and
Stephens is very similar to that of the one being looked at in this essay. In
both cases, each group of people do not have enough or any food to survive long
enough to be rescued, someone must die in order for the rest to survive, and
both situations have legal and moral repercussions. Both Dudley and Stephens had
understandable reasons to kill the young boy in order to survive, and could have
escaped being sentenced to death if they had done one thing, consulted the boy.
By not consulting the boy, an argument can be formulated to prove that they
should have never released Dudley and Stephens from their first sentence of
death. The boy never consented to his life being taken away from him, but if he
were consulted and provided a reason to why he must be killed then perhaps
Dudley and Stephens could have avoided any type of punishment. It is probably
safe to assume that the boy would have not wanted his life to be taken away from
him, and Brooks obviously rejected all of Dudley and Stephens’ suggestions,
therefore it is apparent that some method of solving disputes was in order. So
is the case with the five people in the bunker. Although they are in a dilemma
of who and how someone should be chosen to die. Unlike Dudley and Stephens,
these five people were able to reach an outside source to aid them with their
problem. First of all, this outside source can offer them a method of solving
their disputes by administering the Meta Rule. The way in which the Meta Rule
operates is as follows, “Disputes are resolved by the decision of one or more
persons, once arguments from each side of the issue have been put.”4 An outside
aid is ideal in such a predicament, because they can offer an objective review
of the situation and listen to all the arguments made by those in the bunker;
this a process that is called Audialteramparten, which in Latin means “to hear
both sides.” It is important that the decis