British Court Case: The Queen Vs. Dudley And Stephens

In this brief I will use real-life British court case (“The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens”) as the foundation for exploring right and wrong from the perspectives of two prominent ethical philosophers: John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant and what they may have thought about the case that will be described in the next few paragraphs On July 24th, 1884 The group which consisted of four men Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and the young cabin boy or the victim in question Richard Parker had been at sea for some time, after being cast away in a bad storm. They had gone 7 days without food and 5 days without water. Before this, they had survived on turtles. After, 18 days Stephens and Dudley decided that someone must be sacrificed in order for the rest to survive the ordeal and Parker whom was the only one without a family was chosen to be killed. Parker was sick due to

If everyone makes the same decision in Kant’s eyes, it is seen as morally correct. But, where the act of murder was not universalized as well as treating parker as a means to an end it is seen as an unethical act in Kant’s viewpoint. To Kant, The fact that Dudley and Stephens used Parker as a means to an end they were breaking the ultimate law of morality. Kant believed that it Categorical imperative was a command and no one person could opt out of it.

John Stuart Mill on the other hand believes that Utilitarianism principles are the foundation of morals. “This principle says actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness.” Mill, J. (1865).and that what makes the most people happy should be the choice So, Mills would have thought the death of Parker will not only benefit Dudley and Stephen, but also their families in terms of financial