NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

NANYANG BUSINESS SCHOOL

AB107 – BUSINESS LAW

Written Assignment – Ethical Reasoning

Utilitarianism (Bentham) & Categorical Imperative (Kant)

Please visit the following link and study the video presented by Prof Michael J Sandel of
Harvard University, a Philosophy lecturer best known for his ‘Justice’ series of lectures:

[Link]
imperative/

Answer the question below based only on the moral philosophies presented in the video
clip. (Do not introduce into your answer any other moral philosophies than were
covered in the video clip).

Question

In the cited case of The Queen v Dudley and Stevens (below), imagine that you are
Captain Thomas Dudley and now experience the same vicissitudes as he did on that
fateful yacht journey. With reference to the moral philosophies discussed in the video
clip and, giving clear reasons for your decision, discuss what you would have done
under identical circumstances.

You might find the following Framework of some help as you prepare to write your
essay:

FRAMEWORK

1. Carefully read the facts of the case and understand them fully.
2. You may make necessary assumption/s where the facts appear unclear,
inadequate or incomplete.
3. Recognize the moral and ethical issues presented by the facts.
4. Identify the relevant stakeholders and their interests.
5. Evaluate alternative actions and come to a decision.
Based on the utilitarian and categorical imperative moral philosophies, what
possible options did Captain Thomas Dudley have for acting? Which option
would you choose and why?

1
 [DIVISIONAL COURT]

THE QUEEN v. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS.

1884 Dec. 9. LORD COLERIDGE, C.J., GROVE AND DENMAN, JJ.

POLLOCK AND HUDDLESTON, BB.

Criminal Law - Murder - Killing and eating Flesh of Human Being under Pressure of
Hunger - "Necessity" - Special Verdict - Certiorari - Offence on High Seas -
Jurisdiction of High Court.

INDICTMENT for the murder of Richard Parker on the high seas within the
jurisdiction of the Admiralty.
At the trial before Huddleston, B., at the Devon and Cornwall Winter Assizes,
November 7, 1884, the jury, at the suggestion of the learned judge, found the facts of
the case in a special verdict which stated "that on July 5, 1884, the prisoners, Thomas
Dudley and Edward Stephens, with one Brooks, all able-bodied English seamen, and
the deceased also an English boy, between seventeen and eighteen years of age, the
crew of an English yacht, a registered English vessel, were cast away in a storm on
the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope, and were compelled to put
into an open boat belonging to the said yacht. That in this boat they had no supply of
water and no supply of food, except two 11b. tins of turnips, and for three days they
had nothing else to subsist upon. That on the fourth day they caught a small turtle,
upon which they subsisted for a few days, and this was the only food they had up to
the twentieth day when the act now in question was committed. That on the twelfth
day the remains of 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 1000 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 someone
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 to
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
2
by a passing vessel, and the prisoners were rescued, still alive, but in the lowest state
of prostration. That they were carried to the port of Falmouth, and committed for trial
at Exeter. 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 someone 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."

3
 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

The following are the guidelines for the AB107 written assignment:

1. INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

(a) The deadline for submission of the written assignment is on the first day
of your respective AB107 tutorial commencing immediately after your
Recess. You will hand in a hard copy of your written assignment to your
class representative who will account for all the submitted written
assignments before handing them over to the tutor by the end of the
tutorial session.
(b) Any assignment handed in past the deadline will not be marked.
(c) The word limit for the assignment is a maximum of 2,000 words. Please
adhere to the word limit. Indicate the number of words in brackets at the
end of your assignment using word count.
(d) All assignments are to be prepared with the use of word processors.
(e) This is an individual (and not a group) assignment. Please provide your
full name, tutorial group number and tutor’s name on the cover page
of your assignment.
(f) The school’s rules on Academic Dishonesty will apply. (see overleaf)

2. RELEASE OF GRADES TO STUDENTS

The grade you have earned for your written assignment will be released to you
by your tutor by the time of the last tutorial for the course.

3. COURSE ASSESSMENT

The written assignment carries 20% of your total course assessment marks.

4. OBJECTIVES OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

The Written Assignment is designed to test how you evaluate and make ethical
decisions when placed in a moral dilemma by applying Utilitarian and
Categorical Imperative moral philosophies. You will be evaluated on the
maturity of your ability to critically weigh the various options and to come to a
conclusion.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Academic dishonesty degrades the name of a University and debases the standing of its
degrees. It is the responsibility of each and every student to ensure that all work
submitted to fulfil academic requirements represents his/her own efforts.

CHEATING is the use of unauthorised information in an academic assignment.

It includes:

 Copying from others in an examination

 Using illegal notes during an examination
4
 Taking an examination for another student
 Sharing answers for a take home examination or for an exercise which counts
towards the final examination grade
 Allowing others to do the research and writing of an assigned paper (eg. using the
services of a commercial company).

PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is “the unauthorized use of language and thoughts of another author and the
representation of them as one’s own”.

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

New York, 1995, p. 1032

Plagiarism is intellectual theft. It includes copying something out of any source, be it

a book or article or another student’s essay. It does not matter if pages or paragraphs
or just single sentences or phrases are involved – it is still plagiarism.

The most common forms of plagiarism include:

 Copying word for word from a source without acknowledging the source by
quotation marks and a reference

 Paraphrasing someone else’s ideas in your own words without acknowledging the
source by an appropriate reference. This is not as obvious as copying word for
word but it is still plagiarism. Merely substituting synonyms for the original
words and retaining the original sentence structure still constitutes plagiarism.

 Turning in as your own work, a paper or a portion of a paper conceived jointly

with other students but not giving credit for others’ contributions.

Any student who knowingly or intentionally helps another student to perform

any of the above acts will be subject to disciplinary action. There is no
distinction between those who cheat and plagiarise and those who willingly
allow it to occur.

PENALTIES

1. Any plagiarism may result in a fail grade (0%) for the assignment. In severe
cases, the School may recommend that the student be barred from the final
examination for that subject.

2. Any cheating (i.e. one or more students handing in identical or very similar
assignments), or any conduct that aids others in such infractions will be treated as
cheating in the examination and will be dealt with in accordance with University
statutes.

5
This paper draws from materials on the following websites:

1. [Link] as at 17 October 1996

2. [Link] as at 4 May 1998
3. [Link] as at 7 May
1998
4. [Link] as at 7
May 1998
5. [Link]
[Link]

Dean’s Office, NBS

July 1998