PHL271H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Cabin Boy, Legal Positivism
Document Summary
Law and morality- the queen v. dudley and stephens (lecture 1) Dudley and stephens ate the cabin boy. Brooks did not consent, but took part in the cabin boy. No one asked cabin boy consent toeing killed. (cid:374)o (cid:272)ertai(cid:374) k(cid:374)o(cid:449)ledge that the(cid:455) (cid:449)ould"(cid:448)e (cid:271)ee(cid:374) sa(cid:448)ed carefully thought over to kill cabin boy. Even though committed the act, excused for circumstances actions took place (defence of. Normal way in the past, only making use of don it only when repelling violence. Cabin boy, not dudley and stephens decision to make. Would have horrific consequences don first appealing to prior laws, but prior laws not the same because before repealing to violence in former laws, see that their is gap in law and fills it with moral principals. Engaging in moral arguments, weighing the arguments, suffering of society vs. suffering dudley and stephens faced on ship recognizing not bad people, recognizing long term consequences. Morality guiding hand when law runs out.