Analysis Of 'The Case Of The Speluncean Explorers'
In the case of the reimagined ending of the film and book ‘Life of Pi’, in the setting of the judges from ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’, by Lon L. Fuller, 62 Harvard Law Review 616, I feel that the defendant, Pi Patel is not guilty of the act of murder.
The assignment, as was given, recounts the alternative story given by Pi to the Japanese insurance authorities when questioned about his survival. Although his story with the animals is what is supposed to be real, one can also view it as his coping mechanism to deal with the possible reality of his survival, which comprises of the situation for this essay. This story itself shows Pi’s own problems regarding the morality of what he has done, and brings to light the inner struggle he …show more content…
Pi Patel is stranded in the Pacific Ocean in a lifeboat, with his mother, an injured Taiwanese sailor, and a French cook. The French cook begins to display signs of sadism from the beginning itself, and he kills and eats the injured Taiwanese sailor, in spite of repeated admonitions from Pi and his mother. As days pass by, Pi and his mother get weaker due to lack of food. The cook then kills and eats Pi’s mother despite of Pi’s repeated attempts to stop him. Eventually Pi, enraged by the cook’s actions, and nearly dying from starvation, kills and eats the cook in desperation. For a moral standpoint, many cases can be argued. The problem with using morality is one usually lapses into either simple morality, where one can argue that the very act of killing someone is wrong, regardless of the situation, or one could say that morally speaking, revenge or vengeance can be seen as a justifiable motive for a murder. Morality, truth be told, is a lot more ambiguous than it seems, which is how the concept of law and order even came about in …show more content…
Cases such as R vs. Dudley and Stephens, and United States vs. Holmes, which are generally cited in such similar cases, both work against him. However, as I mentioned, even in such cases, the legality is considered more than the morality, or the need for the law to change.
As for actual changes in the law, it is pointless to keep amending the law every now and then as is done in real life, because it leads to a very slow and gradual change in the law, and mostly happens only after some major public outcry over a law. However, keeping in mind the morality, or therewith, the lack of it in deciding such a case, it would be wise to legislate a law that accounted for the necessity of survival when stranded outside any national borders.
Funnily enough, all of this itself absolves Pi with the assumption that he is an adult. The reality is, Pi is said to be 16 years old when his isolation begins. Taking into account the fact that he was a minor at the time, one can say with confidence that he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with, and that in addition to all of the reasons cited above. Keeping morality in mind, no moral person would convict a 16 year old for killing a man who has just killed his mother and friend in front of
The assignment, as was given, recounts the alternative story given by Pi to the Japanese insurance authorities when questioned about his survival. Although his story with the animals is what is supposed to be real, one can also view it as his coping mechanism to deal with the possible reality of his survival, which comprises of the situation for this essay. This story itself shows Pi’s own problems regarding the morality of what he has done, and brings to light the inner struggle he …show more content…
Pi Patel is stranded in the Pacific Ocean in a lifeboat, with his mother, an injured Taiwanese sailor, and a French cook. The French cook begins to display signs of sadism from the beginning itself, and he kills and eats the injured Taiwanese sailor, in spite of repeated admonitions from Pi and his mother. As days pass by, Pi and his mother get weaker due to lack of food. The cook then kills and eats Pi’s mother despite of Pi’s repeated attempts to stop him. Eventually Pi, enraged by the cook’s actions, and nearly dying from starvation, kills and eats the cook in desperation. For a moral standpoint, many cases can be argued. The problem with using morality is one usually lapses into either simple morality, where one can argue that the very act of killing someone is wrong, regardless of the situation, or one could say that morally speaking, revenge or vengeance can be seen as a justifiable motive for a murder. Morality, truth be told, is a lot more ambiguous than it seems, which is how the concept of law and order even came about in …show more content…
Cases such as R vs. Dudley and Stephens, and United States vs. Holmes, which are generally cited in such similar cases, both work against him. However, as I mentioned, even in such cases, the legality is considered more than the morality, or the need for the law to change.
As for actual changes in the law, it is pointless to keep amending the law every now and then as is done in real life, because it leads to a very slow and gradual change in the law, and mostly happens only after some major public outcry over a law. However, keeping in mind the morality, or therewith, the lack of it in deciding such a case, it would be wise to legislate a law that accounted for the necessity of survival when stranded outside any national borders.
Funnily enough, all of this itself absolves Pi with the assumption that he is an adult. The reality is, Pi is said to be 16 years old when his isolation begins. Taking into account the fact that he was a minor at the time, one can say with confidence that he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with, and that in addition to all of the reasons cited above. Keeping morality in mind, no moral person would convict a 16 year old for killing a man who has just killed his mother and friend in front of