The Ultimate Sacrifice

The Ultimate Sacrifice

This essay is a rebuttal concerning Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Benjamin Cardozo, on his comment on the Holmes case. Associate Justice Cardozo wrote in part: “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.” In essence he is saying that all either survive together, or perish together, rather than to sacrifice some for the greater good of the majority. Cardozo’s quote relates to survivors in an over-crowded life boat on a perilous sea which would have capsized or been sunk had not some passengers been forcibly thrown into the ocean, legal debate questioned the methods used to determine who were thrown to certain death. But Associate Justice Cardozo makes no distinctions about when an unthinkable event might make this decision necessary, he simply states that there is no reason to ever sacrifice anyone, even if it means everyone will die.
I would be curious to hear his admonishment to the members of the Titanic. Survival boats were in woefully short supply. The captain of the Titanic filled the boats with women and children. Many men voluntarily stayed aboard, thinking it the gentlemanly thing to do, and others were ordered to stay aboard because of lack of room in the lifeboats. Should everyone have perished instead of the sacrifice that made life possible for thousands?
In a civilized country during peace time, the only justifiable reason for taking another life is self defense, when serious injury or death seems imminent. Indeed one is fortunate if one lives in such a country at such a time.
Our country has been involved in several wars. Isn’t the sacrifice of soldiers for the greater good of survival of the majority? Yet even in war there are rules of engagement and treatment of the enemy. What is at issue here is extraordinary events where laws of nature are in control and if any are to survive, some must perish.
Baldwin, the Circuit Court Judge, while charging the jury, gave several examples, rules of protocol if you will, as means of determining who could be sacrificed to save the majority. Preferably methods to be used in a “worst case scenario” were agreed upon before hand, and in the case the worst would happen. Precedence from prior events formed a common law that would be applicable under certain circumstances. Survival of our species prevails. If four people have been stranded on the ocean for weeks, and all are starving, but an elderly or injured person is dying, is it not more practical to sacrifice that person to save the other three? This isn’t a theoretical question as it has happened. As barbaric as the situation seems, throughout history similar events have occurred and for most situations there are basic premises to be followed to assure that there are survivors. Life is too precious to be wasted. Sacrifice is always going to be necessary. Cataclysmic events may entail drastic measures to assure survival of the majority is repugnant. To have everyone die when many or most could have survived is a travesty.