Spel Case
After killing the friend who was left with the shortest straw, the remaining plunders 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 ill, 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 too violent act of survival. The spelunkers waited a week after being trapped before 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 decision was heightened by the hunger in their bellies and the fear in their hearts. Still, aggression and violence is usually associated with murder. That is not the case in this situation. There was no plan to purposefully and maliciously kill one of their friends before they were trapped.
Death was the inevitable future of the four friends and the act of killing the randomly chosen friend brought that reality forward. The system that the spelunkers chose in picking who would die for the greater good of the group was a fair method. One person was not singled out to be killed for any other reason besides having the shortest straw and to be the emergency food source. This is validates that killing one of their friends was only to increase their chances of living. Murder, even though a drastic measure to survive, was absolutely necessary due to the reality of their dire situation.
Once the spelunkers were caved in, the reality of their fate was sealed and the probability of surviving this disastrous event was unlikely. The friends had no idea that a trip full of adventure and fun would lead to such a tragic decision. When the subject of reality comes up, the idea of life and existence follows. Human beings have instincts that help them adapt and thrive in unfortunate mishaps. When lives are threatened or challenged, the truth is, people will do anything in their power to save themselves. The case of the spelunkers is no different.
Even though the idea of having to kill and eat their friend is unwelcome, it was the best option for survival. There are some things in life that are uncontrollable and the natural occurrence of a cave-in is Just that. The spelunkers had no connection to the outside world and the session to kill and eat another human was made in the security of their own world, away from the rules of society. Though unintentional, the reality of the spelunkers’ situation led to an irreversible decision, in which the consequences were an afterthought.
Consequences usually have a negative connotation associated with them. The dire circumstances in which the friends were in, led them to make choices in order to survive. The repercussions the three friends would face were an afterthought in light of trying to survive. In the moment of making the decision to kill another human eyeing, the last thing on their minds was what people would think of them afterwards. They were simply trying to live. Instead of being regarded as brave and courageous in the eye of death, the remaining spelunkers were shamed and ostracizes from society for killing their friend.
To be snubbed by the community where one lives is very difficult to process, especially after the ordeal they Just went through. Then to be categorized as murderers and charged with homicide is unfair. The rules of law should not apply to special circumstances like the case of the spelunkers. If the here friends had not killed their friend and ate him, they would not be alive to tell their story. The consequences of being shunned by the community and being charged with murder, though unanticipated, undoubtedly stirred up emotions of guilt and shame for doing what they needed to do in order to survive. Tit feelings such as fear, despair, or hopelessness, the human mind can make decisions it would not normally. The spelunkers went through a spectrum of emotions before and after the killing of their friend. Being presented with such a calamitous situation, such as being trapped in a cave, can induce a state of panic and anxiety. As much as the four friends wanted to stay calm and wait patiently for help, the idea of dying was too frightening. The simple fear of not being able to survive due to limited resources prompted the idea of drawing straws.
After the straws were drawn, reality set in that one of them would be eaten. And for the three friends to not feel remorse or guilt after killing their friend was nearly impossible. This act was not an easy one and the remorse and guilt will not go away. Without the sacrifice of the friend who died, none of the men would be alive. The friends are grateful and appreciative for their friend’s sacrifice for them to live, yet sad and remorseful that their situation led them to that conclusion.
Since the spelunkers were faced with fear they may not live, they acted with their emotions instead of the morals they would have normally abided by in everyday life. Having morals helps people chose from right and wrong doings. For the most part, the majority of humans would not result to violence or murder in a normal, everyday circumstance. There must be a catalyst for such behavior. In the case of the spelunkers, their feelings superseded moral consideration based on the fear of death. The emotionally charged spelunkers thought with their hearts and not with their minds.
So is the difference between emotions and morals. The friendships that the four men shared were strong and the loyalty they had to one another was proven by the participation in drawing straws. This moral dilemma was the ultimate test of the bond the friends shared. The three friends should not be held responsible for murder based on their limited options of survival. The men’s’ morals did not come into consideration when trying to fight to stay alive. Though the decision to kill their friend for the benefit of the group’s survival is questionable, the spelunkers should not be charged with homicide.
Killing someone under any other circumstance is a plausible reason to arrest and charge someone of murder. But the reality of the situation is, if the spelunkers had enough resources and if emotions such as fear for survival did not exist, murder would not have occurred because their morals would tell them that the consequences for such action, such as the absence of their friend, being charged for murder, and being ostracizes, was not worth it. The truth is, the spelunkers had no other choice but to omit this powerful act if they wanted to stay alive.
And, if they had not killed their friend, four people would be dead instead of Just one person. Every day, people are faced with moral dilemmas and controversial subject matters. Those people are no different than the spelunkers. Although the circumstances surrounding this controversy are not a normal, fear can drive people to do things they would not typically do. If the roles were reverse and if anyone else were in the place of the spelunkers, it would be a challenge for people to accept death without trying everything they could to survive.
