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 decision-maker hear both sides and that
the decision-maker also be a generalist.5 The reason for this, is that by
listening to both sides they can know all the concerns that the people in the
bunker have, and by being a generalist they can be impartial to the situation,
thereby making a rational and fair decision. By imposing the Meta Rule, this
outside source can make a decision, and according to the Meta Rule, this must be
carried out. Whether or not the decision is “wrong” does not matter, it is
imperative and necessary that one be made to resolve the dispute of who, how,
and why someone must die.
The doctrine of necessity is a very important notion to this case, because it is
necessary that someone die in order for the remaining four survive. ” Necessity
knows no law,’ it is often said. In other words, you can’t be held legally
liable for an act you had to do.”6 This is what the people in the bunker must
remember, and this will legally justify the decision to kill someone. Morally,
whether the decision was “right” or “wrong,” can be argued till the end of time,
but there is no time to accommodate a moral debate. All that is left to do now,
is to draw lots and find out who is going to have to die for the others to live.
“When the selection has been made by lots, the victim yields of course to their
fate; or if they resist, force may be employed to coerce division.”7 As harsh
as it may sound, if necessity has no legal standing in this situation, it should
not stand in any other case. In other words, necessity has been used as an
argument to justify one’s actions in other cases and is accordingly justifiable
in this circumstance.
Making a decision on the situation without examining it with knowledge of law
and morality, the Meta Rule, and the doctrine of necessity would make it even
more difficult to find a rational reason why one of the five people in the
bunker should die, let alone justify it. Law and morality illustrated how
sensitive a situation such as this can be, and how difficult it is to make a
pure legal d