Christine-Danielle Leon Guerrero
Critical Thinking 101-08
Professor Suba
December 1, 2022
“He Was Going to Die Anyway”
In the case of Her Majesty The Queen v. Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens, a great dilemma
leaves the people to decide whether or not the acts of these two individuals are lawful. This topic
of discussion involves cannibalism and will conclude with the decision I would make if I were in
such a position.
To give a basis of the story, it starts with a captain, two crew members, and a cabin boy who sail
aboard the yacht Mignonette, and are headed to Australia. Two months into their journey, they
come across a storm and all four of them manage to get into a lifeboat. With the nearest land
being 700 miles away, and only having two tins of turnips and a turtle they had caught, while
having no fresh water as well, the four of them didn’t know what to do. All they knew was that
they needed to survive, and the possibilities were endless if it meant they didn’t have to die for it.
They started to become desperate and hydrated themselves with their own urine. Little discussion
was made about one man sacrificing and drawing lots for the sake of the others, but they didn’t
reach a solution. A few days later, the men had now been without any food or fresh water and
Parker (the cabin boy) started to become ill. The men go back to the discussion of drawing lots
and Brooks (one of two crew members) rejects that idea. Then the two, Dudley (captain) and
Stephens (second crew member) had discussed that, compared to them, Parker was an orphan
child while they have families, and that he would probably die anyway because of his sickness.
Sure enough, Stephens holds Parker down while Dudley kills him with a penknife, and since the
poor boy was already weak, he couldn’t defend himself in any way. Brooks, however, didn’t
participate in the killing, but he also didn’t stop it from happening; he did participate in the
eating portion of the act as well. After three days of consuming Parker’s flesh and blood, the
three men were finally rescued and were upfront with what had happened. They had said that
they had not seen any boats at the time of Parker’s death and that they would’ve all died of
starvation if he was not killed. They called it, “no greater necessity” for taking his life rather than
any of the other’s. Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder, but Brooks was not.
Identifying the Issue
Moral and Ethical Values
Many issues are raised by this case. One of those issues being, the challenge of moral and ethical
values. This can be based on ethics within the principles of religion, such as Catholicism. In
Catholicism, as part of the ten commandments, it is said, “Thou shall not kill.” With this case, it
raises a lot of questions on whether or not Dudley and Stephens took this into place while
deciding to take Parker’s life. It leaves a tough thought to those who follow these ethical values
because of how deep it could touch that aspect of life for them. It leaves the thought of whether
or not it was okay for Dudley and Stephens to kill the boy on the basis that they were going to
die of starvation and that the best thing they could think of was to use Parker so that only one
would have to die instead of all four. Each persons’ morals in life are different. Dudley and
Stephens could see nothing wrong with committing the act they did, because they needed to
survive. Brooks, however, didn’t commit the crime, yet he continued the act of eating Parker’s
flesh in order to survive. This poses, yet, another question on the line between moral values and
physical biological needs, and where it should be placed in these types of situations.
Factual or Falsity?
When it comes to whether or not we know the facts of a situation, it could always raise an issue.
With this case, some major factual issues raised by this case are 1) the decision-making process
between Dudley and Stephens, and 2) Brook’s part in the act of the crime. Dudley and Stephens
were said to have discussed that since Parker was an orphan and they had families, and he is
sickly, he was going to die anyway. While this may be true, the act of killing the boy and how
they did it is what raises questions for me. It is misunderstood why Dudley and Stephens had to
kill Parker that way; why Stephens had to hold him down for Dudley to stab him with a
penknife. Why couldn’t there be another way to do it? To continue off of this fact, Brook’s part
in the whole shenanigan was quite concerning. It says that he refused when the three of them
were discussing drawing lots, and he didn’t participate in the crime, but then he didn’t stop it
either? It doesn’t quite make sense in a way that is clear to understand what exactly Brook’s
intentions were. It’s crazy to think that a person could refuse to take apart someone, but would
watch the act of it being done without stopping it. This raises the question on his involvement in
the entire thing and if his standby action would be seen as little to nothing in front of the court.
Gaps to Fill
There are many possibilities that could’ve happened during this time. One of what I am most
concerned about is the fact that when one had said the part about there being “no greater
necessity for killing the boy than any of the other three men.” It concerns me only because it was
never mentioned how ill Parker was, and if I’m not mistaken, they were all going to die anyway
of starvation. Whether they killed Parker or not, they were all going to die of starvation and thirst
if they hadn’t been rescued when they were. Another concern that was brought up was the time
between the two men’s death sentence and the day their consequence was trimmed. I know there
was a recommendation of mercy, but I only wonder how long it took for the recommendation to
be considered and on what basis was the reason for changing their consequence. Lastly, I guess I
wanted to know a little more about Brooks and where he stood during the trial and everything
that was happening with the other two men. It was mentioned that Brooks wasn’t charged, but
there was not a mention of anything dealing with his witness to the crime and not doing anything
about it. This also poses the question as to what exactly did Brooks do? It says that he refused,
but it never confirmed nor denied that Brooks ate the flesh either. I feel like if that were more
clear, there would be a better understanding.
Who’s in the Crossfire?
Unless I am seeing this completely wrong, the only stakeholders in this case are Dudley and
Stepehens. Those two men, along with their families, are the only major people involved in this
case that would be affected by whatever decision is made by the court.
Outline the Options
1. Find the main alternative actions that would be followed if the decision was in response
to the ethical issues in the case.
Some main alternatives that could’ve been taken if the decision being made was in response to
ethical issues, could be that all three would be charged. Dudley and Stephens would still be
charged with physically following through with the crime, as well as now Brooks would have
some kind of charge on him for having just sat there without stopping the crime he witnessed.
Dudley and Stephens’ decision would also be heavily looked upon in the sense that they killed
him before his natural death, and would most likely add a charge on top of murder. In another
ethical sense, they wouldn’t be charged with just murder, but for consuming Parker’s flesh and
drinking his blood as well.
2. Identify the major views on the conceptual issues raised by the case.
The major views on the conceptual issues raised by the case are that what the two men did was
valid and the public think there was no wrong done. Another view might be that the consequence
shouldn’t have changed for Dudley and Stephens - that they should have gone through with the
death penalty and not have been shown mercy. Another view might be negative toward Brooks
and his involvement in this story. Although he refused to draw lots, there’s still a lingering
question on whether or not he ate the body, and that might raise suspicion even more in terms of
his charges.
3. Name some unknown facts that weren’t said in the material.
A fact that is not mentioned in the material is that before Parker’s murder, evidence states, “The
prisoner Dudley offered a prayer asking forgiveness for them all if either of them should be
tempted to commit a rash act, and that their souls might be saved” (The Queen v. Dudley and
Stephens - Indictment, 1884). This would have definitely played a factor into the decision if it
were based on ethical values. Just the fact that Dudley prayed and asked for forgiveness from
Parker for whomever should kill and they would have to consume him to survive, might be one
of the reasons the two men were shown mercy. This piece of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean
that the two men should be excused for their crime, but it does show that they didn’t intend to
just kill him, but felt guilty even before having to do so. Another piece of evidence I found,
places Dudley as the murder, saying he did a solo job in killing Parker. It states, “That next day,
the 25th of July, no vessel appearing, Dudley told Brooks that he had better go and have a sleep,
and made signs to Stephens and Brooks that the boy had better be killed. The prisoner Stephens
agreed to the act, but Brooks dissented from it…Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, went to the
boy, and telling him that his time was come, put a knife into his throat and killed him then and
there; that the three men fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days” (The Queen v.
Dudley and Stephens - Indictment, 1884). This suggests that Stephens did in fact agree to the act
of killing Parker, but also raises questions on whether or not he participated in the killing. This
also confirms the fact that Brooks didn’t partake in the crime, but still ate Parker’s flesh and
drank his blood after Dudley had killed him.
Evaluate Each Argument
Argument #1
When it comes to deciding the fate of two individuals who killed and ate someone in order to
survive, it becomes tough to separate the mind from the heart. On the account of ethical values,
Dudley and Stephens should be charged with murder, but with the death penalty remained as
their consequence. In addition to that, Brooks should also be charged with some kind of felony
for having still consumed Parker’s body. On the basis of necessity for starvation, there was no
hard evidence that suggested the need to kill Parker in order for the other three to survive. “There
was no greater necessity” is just used as an excuse to murder the boy so that the others wouldn’t
know how it feels to suffer. The only reason I say it is used as an excuse, because if Parker
hadn’t gotten sick, then what resolution would the men come to? It was the fact that Dudley
highlighted and compared the boy’s life to theirs. The two men had the mentality that their lives
were more important because they had families waiting at home for them and since Parker was
an orphan, that his life was worth being spared. In an effort to survive, the ethical reasoning
behind it all is out of line. It wasn’t in their intentions to kill the boy, but the reasoning they
brought forward for doing so suggested they were being ignorant about the whole situation. It’s
understood that under certain circumstances, some things occur that are not natural. However, in
this case, it really pushes the scale when morality and ethics are brought into it. The mind and the
heart are tricky to play with, but in the eyes of the law, it is what the facts present that make all
the difference.
Argument #2
What the two men did was morally wrong. However, with the circumstances they were under, it
can be understood why they did what they did. If killing and consuming Parker was the last thing
they could possibly do in order to come out even barely alive, then the act could be justified. The
only concern that lingers is whether or not that solution was the two men’s last resort. It wasn’t
said clearly nor was any evidence provided that killing Parker was their only way out. In an
effort to see it from another view, what if Parker had not been ill? What, then, would the men
have done in order to survive? While analyzing the case, it seems that it could have gone to a
point where only the fittest out of the four could’ve survived. Little discussion was made when
appointing Parker to be the sacrificer for the other’s sake. Just like how the defense team argued
that the two men did kill Parker but “under the pressure of necessity and necessity will excuse an
act which would otherwise be a crime…” and used the case of The United States v. Holmes. That
case proposed “that a passenger on board a vessel may be thrown overboard to save the others is
sanctioned.” The defense was trying to compare the two and could have used the fallacy of false
analogy. In this case, no morality or ethical values would have taken place. At the end of the day,
it was either going to be one man dead or one still left standing.
Argument #3
In a sense, the crime can be looked at like the odds were never in Parker’s favor. He was the
youngest one, and his sickness added onto his resume for death. No consideration of ethical
reasoning would have taken place. Exactly like how Dudley proposed it to Stephens and Brooks,
“Parker will probably die anyway.” It’s sad to know that the men were selfish and just killed him
so that they could survive. The worst part was that they didn’t even tell Parker that he was going
to die that day - Dudley stabbed him, he was too weak to defend himself, and then moments later
he was gone.
Make a Decision
In an effort to read and analyze the story, I feel like I have come to a decision that would
be the ethically best way to deal with the issue presented in the case. I would stand behind the
first argument. The reason being, is because it has the most consideration for ethical reasoning
throughout the case. I don’t agree with the change from the statutory death penalty to only six
months in jail, however, I am on the side of the court in making the two men serve some kind of
time. The public sentiment concerned me, only until I had realized they were probably viewing it
on the basis of survival. I understand where the men were coming from in terms of not wanting
to die, but not as much as I could ever understand - in a morality and ethics view - why they did
what they “needed” to do. My thought is, if the boy hadn't gotten sick, then what alternate
solution would the men have come to? Why not try to fish for something, or if they had tried,
why would it not be in the evidence portion of the case to showcase proof? They had caught the
turtle, so I assume they know how to catch a sea creature. Therefore, an alternative could have
been to fish for other creatures. One rebuttal I can think of that someone would use against my
decision, would be that it didn’t matter if Parker was sick or not, but what mattered was that he
was young and fresh. His life would’ve been the first one to sacrifice anyway because of his
background, and the fact that he didn’t really have anything to look forward to, in a sense. There
are many what ifs, could’ves, and should haves, but the matter of the fact is, that these two men
committed a horrendous crime in both the eyes of the law and ethical reasoning, and should have
paid their life back with it in jail.