They always eat the cabin boy...

These 4 cases are examples of 'Murder' excuses. although they all satistified the 2 core requirments of homicide: intention to kill + the actual killing itself, only one case is considered guilty as charged. does 'Necessity' justify a lawful legit excuse to murder?


Case 1


This happened over 120yrs ago. a shipping yacht had experienced a thunder storm in the middle of no where and crew members had to abondon the vessel onto the lifeboat for survivals. only 4 did make it: the captain, c0-captain, a cabin boy & someone else (notes didn't say). yet , they only brought minimal food and no fresh water with them. over the next 10days or so, everything was consumed and the poor dudes did not manage to catch anything in the sea. seems like every dying seconds, captain made a suggestion to have the weakest killed & served his 'fresh' as food. if u are going to die anyway, why not in a meaningful way, the captian thought. to make the story short, they killed the weak cabin boy who had no way to defend and the 3 fed on his body in the next 4 days, and finally got picked up by a pass-by fishing ship. are they murderers or explainable legal kills?


Case 2

In 2000, a twin babies were born with an unfortunate conjoined body. doctor & parents had to make an important decision whether to seperate them or not. without the proper surgical operation, both will die 100%. certainly if we were to proceed the operation, the weaker twin will die in saving the life of the stronger one. the doctor in this case seems to perform a lawful kill, or is it? why nor a murder case though? of course, the operation was performed and stronger twin survived. the sacrificed twin was weak but it doesn't mean he won't survive over the stronger one. who is to judge here?


Case 3

2 experienced hikers/mountaineers were once again challenging some 'tops of the world'. in the safety preparation, they linked up together with rope so that one can help out the other in case of accident. on a steeper climb, u know, shit happened. the lower climber accidentally fell, and with his rope attached to the upper guy, here's the dilema: top climber could only: cut the rope or not cut the rope. he knew he cannnot possibly pull the other guy up all by himself. if he is to hang-on, he may be dragged to dealth. eventually, he did cut the rope and witness his companion's death. murder or legal kill, you decide?!


Case 4

This is a hypothetical case, as we all know the facts of 911. if US government were to find out the terrorist's plan a little earlier and did have some time to react to the attack, what would they do? one quick thought would be shooting down the plane before it hitted world trade centre, and let's say US milliary were determined enough to launch a bomber to shoot it down, all the passengers in the plane would have no chance of survivals. on proportion wise, casualties were greatly reduced but was it morally fair? why lesser of the two evils? how do u justify who to sacrificy?


Upon all four cases, we were to ask ourselves, when it comes to 'Necessity to Kill', who is to judge?