Our world is built upon a paradigm, survival of the fittest. This has been the guiding principle of evolution and nature since life first began to grace our little blue planet. It is hardwired within us, and in extreme circumstances it is not unheard of for primal instincts to take over. The urge to survive, the drive to live, self-preservation trumps negligible thoughts of morality when you lay stranded on a small life boat without and forseeable rescue.
I am not saying that I condone the actions undertaken by Dudley, I am merely expressing their primeval dominance in unparalleled situations of distress.
However there seems like, in this specific incident there was little that could have been done. Desperation prevailed. With no visible sign of rescue it would it not be worse to expect that all aboard the lifeboat die? Especially when a form of sustenance was available. The choice seems even clear when you consider the evidence. The men aboard the lifeboat must have reported that Parker was knocking on death’s door.
It kill him and cannibalise him sooner rather than later, to preserve his blood, again presents itself as a matter of necessity.
No two individuals will ever fully agree on this case. The argument will stem from your stanspoint on cannibalism. I am in no way an advocate of the practice, but what this challenge highlights is the strength of our desire to live, and go on.
Do you condone/think this course of action was write? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens#Facts