Summary[ edit ] Dorian Gray is the subject of a full-length portrait in oil by Basil Hallward, an artist who is impressed and infatuated by Dorian's beauty ; he believes that Dorian's beauty is responsible for the new mood in his art as a painter. Through Basil, Dorian meets Lord Henry Wotton, and he soon is enthralled by the aristocrat's hedonistic world view: Newly understanding that his beauty will fade, Dorian expresses the desire to sell his soul, to ensure that the picture, rather than he, will age and fade. The wish is granted, and Dorian pursues a libertine life of varied and amoral experiences, while staying young and beautiful; all the while his portrait ages and records every sin.
Suppose you find yourself in a situation in which killing an innocent person is the only way to prevent many innocent people from dying. This question arose in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephensa famous English law case involving four men stranded in a lifeboat without food or water. How should we judge the action of Dudley and Stephens?
Was it morally justified or morally wrong? A man who, in order to escape death from hunger, kills another for the purpose of eating his flesh, is guilty of murder; although at the time of the act he is in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable ground for believing that it affords the only chance of preserving his life.
At the trial of an indictment for murder it appeared, upon a special verdict, that the prisoners D. Held, that upon these facts, there was no proof of any such necessity as could justify Harward the moral side of murder prisoners in killing the boy, and that they were guilty of murder.
At the trial before Huddleston, B. That in this boat they had no supply of water and no supply of food, except two 1 lb. That on the fourth day they caught a small [p. That on the twelfth day the turtle were entirely consumed, and for the next eight days they had nothing to eat.
That they had no fresh water, except such rain as they from time to time caught in their oilskin capes. That the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than miles away from land.
That on the eighteenth day, when they had been seven days without food and five without water, the prisoners spoke to Brooks as to what should be done if no succour came, and suggested that some one should be sacrificed to save the rest, but Brooks dissented, and the boy, to whom they were understood to refer, was not consulted.
That on the 24th of July, the day before the act now in question, the prisoner Dudley proposed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast who should be put to death to save the rest, but Brooks refused consent, and it was not put to the boy, and in point of fact there was no drawing of lots.
That on that day the prisoners spoke of their having families, and suggested it would be better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved, and Dudley proposed that if there was no vessel in sight by the morrow morning the boy should be killed.
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. That the boy was then lying at the bottom of the boat quite helpless, and extremely weakened by famine and by drinking sea water, and unable to make any resistance, nor did he ever assent to his being killed.
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.
That 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; that on the fourth day after the act had been committed the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and the prisoners were rescued, still alive, but in the lowest state of prostration.
That they were carried to the [p. That if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and rescued, but would within the four days have died of famine.
That the boy, being in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them. That at the time of the act in question there was no sail in sight, nor any reasonable prospect of relief. That under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then fed or very soon fed upon the boy or one of themselves they would die of starvation.
That there was no appreciable chance of saving life except by killing some one for the others to eat. That assuming any necessity to kill anybody, there was no greater necessity for killing the boy than any of the other three men.
But whether upon the whole matter by the jurors found the killing of Richard Parker by Dudley and Stephens be felony and murder the jurors are ignorant, and pray the advice of the Court thereupon, and if upon the whole matter the Court shall be of opinion that the killing of Richard Parker be felony and murder, then the jurors say that Dudley and Stephens were each guilty of felony and murder as alleged in the indictment.
On the application of the Crown they were again adjourned to the 4th of December, and the case ordered to be argued before a Court consisting of five judges. Mathews and Dankwerts with himappeared for the Crown.
With regard to the substantial question in the case—whether the prisoners in killing Parker were guilty of murder—the law is that where a private person acting upon his own judgment takes the life of a fellow creature, his act can only be justified on the ground of self-defence—self-defence against the acts of the person whose life is taken.
This principle has been extended to include the case of a man killing another to prevent him from committing some great crime upon a third person.The rape/torture/murder of an innocent pregnant young lady is very different type of killing (murder/crime)than is the just sanction (execution/legal sanction) for the guilty criminal who.
Welcome to Cite This for Me About Cite This For Me. Cite This For Me is one of the most popular citation tools today. Launched in October , we began with the mission of helping students create perfect citations in a fraction of the time. PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing-what would you do?
What would be the right thing to do? Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder: If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do?What would be the right thing to do?
Lecture 1 - The Moral Side of Murder. Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? Harvard. Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder: If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing what would you do? What. Jan 12, · Oscar Harward is a 71 year old disabled male who lives in Monroe, NC, USA. He has a lifetime of love for our Constitutional freedoms and the Judeo-Christian values. Oscar has been involved in GOP partisan politics since Follow Sandel’s Harvard Justice Course Here The Moral Side Of Murder If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a heated debate about whether same-sex.
That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses . Survivors Are at Risk Survivors of suicide are at high risk of completing suicide themselves. The experience suddenly makes the idea of suicide very real and it is not uncommon for survivors to experience suicidal thoughts. Moral excellence originates from propensity, which is the reason this framework underscores character.
The thought is that one does not do great on account of reason; rather, one does great given the examples of a lifetime.