Question #5
June 22, 2007
I agree with Cardozo that "when two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison." I understand what the judge is stating in his charge to the jury that the sailors and the passengers can not be regarded as the same, but should the sailor be able to play the part of God and decide who gets to live and who is going to die. I believe that Holmes had the best intention during the disaster, but I don't think that he should have taken one life to save another.
This is a challenging case because we don't know what would have happened if no one person was sacrificed, but we also don't know if they would have all died due to the sinking boat. However, it is against the law to murder, and the Bible states that "thou shalt not murder". The Bible doesn't state thou may murder if it is a disaster-like situation. It is no ones place but God to decide who shall live and who shall die. Furthermore, the selection process of who shall live was human "man and wife were not torn asunder, and the women were all preserved", yet is it fair for an unmarried young man to die simply because he has not taken a wife yet.
The judge states that "he(Holmes) is bound to set a greater value on the life of others than on his own," and I agree with. If Holmes really cared about saving as many lives as possible he would have sacrificed his own life before other. When Holmes took his position as a sailor he knew that a life threatening situation could happen and a part duties is to maintain the safety of the passengers.
Whether or not Holmes had the best intentions for his passengers or not he still took the lives of others. He should have tried to save all of his passengers life, or given his life before others. Murder is a sin and it is against the law and Holmes should have to pay for his crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment