Some people are opposed to what Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks did when they decided to eat the cabin boy, Peter Parker. They argue that it is wrong to use a human being in this way--exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent--even if doing so benefits others.
These people's ethical opposition to what Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks did is rooted in several significant concerns. Firstly, they argue that exploiting the vulnerability of another individual, especially one who is defenseless and dependent, is inherently unethical. It violates the principles of empathy, compassion, and human dignity, which human societies often hold in high regard.
The act also infringes upon the fundamental right to life, as Peter Parker's life was taken away without his consent. Consent forms a foundational aspect of moral decision-making, and by ignoring this crucial component, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks are seen as disregarding an individual's autonomy and agency over their life.
Furthermore, these individuals contend that the perceived benefits gained from consuming Peter Parker do not morally justify the act. They believe that the end does not justify the means, and using another person as a means to an end is an ethically flawed perspective. In this case, benefiting others by cannibalism violates societal norms, cultural values, and humanistic principles that prioritize the respect and well-being of every individual.
Ultimately, these individuals's opposition is derived from an understanding that ethical decisions should uphold the principles of fairness, respect, and justice. Exploiting another person's vulnerability, taking their life without consent, and using their body for gain contravene these values, regardless of any pragmatic benefits that may result.
The case of Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks, also known as the case of the "Mignonette," raises ethical concerns and differing opinions on their decision to consume the cabin boy, Richard Parker, in order to survive. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of the arguments and perspectives regarding this incident:
1. Exploitation of Vulnerability: Opponents argue that consuming a human being, particularly a vulnerable and defenseless individual like the cabin boy, is morally wrong. They contend that it is fundamentally unethical to exploit someone's vulnerability, especially when it involves taking their life without their consent.
2. Autonomy and Consent: Critics emphasize the importance of individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own life. In the case of Richard Parker, opponents argue that he did not have the opportunity to give consent for his life to be taken and used for the survival of others.
3. Human Dignity and Intrinsic Value: Those who opposed the actions of Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks stress the inherent dignity and value of every human being. They contend that using another person as a means to an end, even in extreme situations, disregards this intrinsic value and undermines the moral fabric of society.
4. Utilitarian Perspective: On the other hand, proponents of their actions may argue from a utilitarian standpoint, focusing on the overall consequences and benefits. They contend that by consuming Richard Parker, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks were able to survive and prevent their own deaths, potentially benefiting a greater number of people who depended on their survival.
5. Moral Dilemma: The case of the Mignonette fundamentally raises a complex moral dilemma, pitting individual rights and dignity against the need for survival. It challenges individuals to consider the ethical implications of extreme circumstances and how they may influence moral decision-making.
In conclusion, the actions of Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks in consuming the cabin boy, Peter Parker, raise significant ethical discussions around using a human being in such a manner. While opponents emphasize the exploitation, lack of consent, and violation of dignity, supporters may argue from a utilitarian perspective, considering the overall consequences and benefits of their survival. Ultimately, this case represents a moral dilemma that prompts reflection on the intersection of life, survival, and individual rights.