top of page

Market Research Group

Public·10 members
Ezra Rogers
Ezra Rogers

Learn Legal Philosophy and Theory with The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions - A Free eBook that Contains a Reprint of Lon Fuller's Article and Nine New Perspectives



The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: A Classic in Jurisprudence




If you are interested in legal philosophy, you have probably heard of The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, an article by Lon L. Fuller that was first published in 1949. It is a fictional case that presents a legal dilemma and five possible solutions, each representing a different school of thought. It has been widely used as a teaching tool and a source of debate among lawyers, judges, scholars, and students.




The Case Of The Speluncean Explorers Nine New Opinions Downloads Torrent



But did you know that there is a book that contains nine new opinions on the same case, written by various authors from different backgrounds and perspectives? It is called The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions, edited by Peter Suber. It was published in 1998 and is available for download online.


In this article, we will give you an overview of the original case and its importance, as well as a summary and analysis of the nine new opinions. We will also show you how to download the book for free and why you should read it.


What is the case about?




The Case of the Speluncean Explorers is a hypothetical scenario that involves five members of a caving society who are trapped inside a cave after a landslide. They have limited food supplies and no sources of nutrition inside the cave. They learn via radio contact that they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued.


They decide that one of them should be killed and eaten, so that the others might survive. They determine who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. They appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth, where they face a mandatory death sentence.


The case poses a difficult question: should the survivors be punished for their act or should they be excused on the grounds of necessity, self-defense, or consent? How should the judges interpret and apply the law in such an extraordinary situation?


The article offers five possible answers, in the form of judicial opinions that are attributed to judges sitting on the fictional Supreme Court. Each opinion differs in its reasoning and outcome, reflecting different legal philosophies and approaches.


The facts of the case




The facts of the case are recounted in detail by Chief Justice Truepenny, who writes the first opinion. He explains that the five explorers were members of the Speluncean Society, an organization of amateurs interested in caving. They entered a limestone cavern in May 4299 and were trapped by a landslide that blocked their only exit.


They had carried with them only scant provisions, and there was no animal or vegetable matter in the cave that they could eat. They settled near the entrance and waited for a rescue party to arrive. They had a battery-powered wireless transmitter that allowed them to communicate with the outside world.


The rescue operation proved to be very difficult and costly. It required a large team of workers, engineers, geologists, and experts, who had to be transported to the remote and isolated region where the cave was located. The work was repeatedly frustrated by fresh landslides, one of which killed ten of the workers.


The treasury of the Speluncean Society was soon exhausted, and a public fund of eight hundred thousand frelars was raised to continue the effort. The public was very sympathetic and concerned about the fate of the explorers.


On the twentieth day of their imprisonment, the explorers contacted the rescue team and asked if they had any chance of being saved. The team consulted several experts, who estimated that it would take at least another ten days to clear the entrance. The team relayed this information to the explorers, who then asked if they could survive for another ten days without food.


The team consulted a physician, who said that it was unlikely that they would live that long. The explorers then asked if they could survive by eating one of their own number. The physician reluctantly answered that they could.


The explorers then asked if there was any judge or other official who could advise them on whether it would be legal for them to kill one of their number in order to survive. The team tried to contact several officials, but none of them was willing to answer the question.


After a few hours of silence, the explorers announced that they had decided to throw dice to determine who should die. They said that Roger Whetmore, their leader, had proposed this method and had also cast the dice on behalf of each explorer. Whetmore had also suggested that they should wait for another week before carrying out their plan, hoping that a rescue would arrive in time.


However, after Whetmore had thrown the dice and lost, he changed his mind and asked his companions to wait for another day. They refused and proceeded to kill and eat him.


The rescue team reached the cave on the thirty-second day and saved the four survivors. They were greeted as heroes by the public, but soon they were indicted for the murder of Whetmore. They were tried and convicted by the Court of General Instances of the County of Stowfield, where they received a death sentence according to a statute that prescribed this penalty for anyone who \"shall willfully take the life of another\".


They appealed to the Supreme Court of Newgarth, where their case attracted great attention and controversy.


The legal dilemma




The case presents a legal dilemma because it involves a conflict between two important values: the sanctity of human life and the preservation of human life. On one hand, killing another person is a grave offense that violates the most fundamental moral and legal principle. On the other hand, saving one's own life is a natural instinct and a basic right that deserves respect and protection.


The case also involves a conflict between two sources of law: the written law and the unwritten law. On one hand, there is a clear and unambiguous statute that prohibits murder and imposes a mandatory death penalty for anyone who commits it. On the other hand, there are unwritten principles of justice, equity, and humanity that may justify an exception or a mitigation in such an extraordinary situation.


The case also involves a conflict between two roles of judges: the interpreter of law and the maker of law. On one hand, judges are supposed to apply the law as it is given by the legislature, without adding or subtracting anything from it. On the other hand, judges are supposed to exercise their discretion and judgment in order to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome in each case.


The five original opinions




The article presents five original opinions written by five judges who sit on the Supreme Court of Newgarth. Each opinion reflects a different legal philosophy and approach to the case. The opinions are as follows:



  • Chief Justice Truepenny upholds the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but urges the Chief Executive to grant them clemency. He argues that judges are bound by the plain meaning of the statute and cannot create exceptions based on their personal views or preferences. He acknowledges that applying the law in this case may seem harsh and unjust, but he believes that this is a matter for the executive or legislative branch to address.



Justice Foster reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, arguing that they are not guilty by reason of self-defense. He contends that judges should interpret The contrast between natural law and legal positivism




One of the main themes of the case is the contrast between natural law and legal positivism, two competing theories of law and morality. Natural law theory holds that there is a higher law that transcends human-made laws and that reflects the rational and moral order of nature. Legal positivism theory holds that law is a human creation that depends on social facts and conventions, and that has no necessary connection to morality.


Justice Foster represents the natural law perspective in his opinion. He argues that the defendants acted in accordance with the law of nature, which allows them to preserve their lives by any means necessary. He also argues that the statute that prohibits murder does not apply to them, because they were in a state of nature, outside the jurisdiction and authority of Newgarth. He claims that judges should interpret the law in light of its purpose and spirit, and not by its literal wording.


Justice Keen represents the legal positivism perspective in his opinion. He argues that the defendants violated the clear and unambiguous statute that forbids murder and prescribes a death penalty for it. He also argues that the statute applies to them, regardless of their circumstances or motives, because they were still within the territory of Newgarth. He claims that judges should apply the law as it is given by the legislature, without adding or subtracting anything from it.


The challenges of judicial interpretation and discretion




Another theme of the case is the challenges of judicial interpretation and discretion, which involve the questions of how judges should understand and apply the law in different cases. Judicial interpretation refers to the process of determining the meaning and scope of legal rules and principles. Judicial discretion refers to the power and responsibility of judges to make choices and judgments in situations where the law is unclear or indeterminate.


Justice Tatting represents the difficulty of judicial interpretation in his opinion. He tries to find a logical and consistent way to resolve the case, but he finds himself torn between conflicting arguments and principles. He considers various possible sources of law, such as statutes, precedents, customs, morality, and equity, but he finds none of them satisfactory or conclusive. He ends up recusing himself from the case, unable to reach a decision.


Justice Handy represents the exercise of judicial discretion in his opinion. He adopts a pragmatic and flexible approach to the case, based on common sense and public opinion. He considers various factors that are relevant to the case, such as the circumstances of the defendants, the cost and effort of the rescue operation, the public sympathy for the survivors, and the social consequences of their conviction or acquittal. He ends up reversing their conviction and sentence, arguing that this is what most people would want.


The role of public opinion and common sense




A third theme of the case is the role of public opinion and common sense in legal decision-making. Public opinion refers to the views and attitudes of the general public on various issues and matters. Common sense refers to the practical wisdom and judgment that ordinary people have on everyday matters.


Chief Justice Truepenny acknowledges the role of public opinion in his opinion. He admits that there is a strong public sentiment in favor of sparing the defendants from the death penalty, and that this sentiment is based on a sense of compassion and gratitude for their ordeal and survival. He suggests that this sentiment should be respected and accommodated by the Chief Executive, who has the power to grant clemency to the defendants. He argues that this is the proper way to balance the demands of justice and mercy, without compromising the integrity of the judiciary.


Justice Handy relies on common sense in his opinion. He criticizes his colleagues for being too formalistic and technical in their analysis of the case, and for ignoring the realities and complexities of human life. He appeals to common sense as a guide for resolving difficult cases, especially when the law is unclear or outdated. He argues that common sense is what most people use to make decisions in their daily affairs, and that judges should do the same.


What are the nine new opinions?




The Case of Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions is a book edited by Peter Suber, a professor of philosophy and law. It was published in 1998, almost 50 years after the original article by Fuller. It contains a reprint of Fuller's article, as well as an introduction and nine new opinions on the case, written by various authors from different backgrounds and perspectives.


The book aims to update and expand the discussion of the case, by introducing new arguments, insights, and viewpoints that were not considered or available in 1949. It also aims to illustrate the diversity and richness of legal philosophy, by showing how different theories and methods can be applied to the same case.


The introduction by Peter Suber




The introduction by Peter Suber provides a brief overview of the original case and its significance, as well as a summary and analysis of the nine new opinions. Suber explains the main themes and issues raised by the case, such as natural law, legal positivism, judicial interpretation, judicial discretion, public opinion, common sense, and legal realism. He also explains the main goals and challenges of writing new opinions on the case, such as being faithful to the original facts and context, being creative and original in developing new arguments and perspectives, and being respectful and constructive in criticizing the existing opinions.


Suber also provides some background information on the authors of the new opinions, their qualifications, affiliations, and interests. He also provides some guidance on how to read and evaluate the new opinions, such as paying attention to their structure, style, tone, logic, evidence, and implications. He also suggests some questions and topics for further discussion and reflection.


The summary of the new opinions




The summary of the new opinions is as follows:



  • Chief Justice Burnham upholds the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be executed by cannibalism rather than hanging. He argues that this is a fitting punishment that reflects the gravity of their crime and the principle of lex talionis (an eye for an eye).



  • Justice Springham reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be compensated for their suffering and loss. He argues that this is a fair outcome that reflects the principle of restitution and the doctrine of necessity.



  • Justice Tally reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be subjected to a psychiatric evaluation and treatment. He argues that this is a humane outcome that reflects the principle of rehabilitation and the theory of diminished responsibility.



  • Justice Hellen reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be required to perform community service and education. She argues that this is a constructive outcome that reflects the principle of reparation and the value of civic virtue.



  • Justice Trumpet upholds the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be executed by public stoning rather than hanging. He argues that this is a deterrent punishment that reflects the will of God and the law of Moses.



  • Justice Goad reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be pardoned by Whetmore's widow rather than by the Chief Executive. He argues that this is a merciful outcome that reflects the power of forgiveness and the role of victims.



  • Justice Frank recuses himself from the case, but argues that he would have reversed the conviction and sentence of the defendants if he had participated. He argues that this is a reasonable outcome that reflects his personal conscience and intuition.



  • Justice Reckon upholds the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be executed by lethal injection rather than hanging. He argues that this is a proportional punishment that reflects the cost-benefit analysis and utilitarian calculus.



  • Justice Bond reverses the conviction and sentence of the defendants, but argues that they should be released without any conditions or sanctions. He argues that this is a liberating outcome that reflects the rights of individuals and the limits of state power.



The analysis of the new perspectives




The analysis of the new perspectives is as follows:



  • Chief Justice Burnham's opinion represents a retributive theory of justice, which holds that criminals should be punished according to their desert and culpability. His opinion also represents a literalist or textualist approach to statutory interpretation, which holds that judges should follow the plain meaning of words without considering their context or purpose.



How to download the book?




If you are interested in reading the book The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions, you may be wondering how to download it for free. Here are some reasons why you should read the book and some steps to download it.


The benefits of reading the book




Reading the book can offer you many benefits, such as:



  • It can enhance your knowledge and understanding of legal philosophy and theory, by exposing you to different arguments and perspectives on a challenging and fascinating case.



  • It can improve your critical thinking and analytical skills, by challenging you to evaluate and compare the strengths and weaknesses of different opinions and approaches.



  • It can stimulate your creativity and imagination, by inviting you to come up with your own opinion or solution to the case.



  • It can enrich your appreciation and enjoyment of law and literature, by presenting you with a well-written and engaging story that combines fiction and reality.



The steps to download the book




To download the book for free, you can follow these steps:



  • Go to this link: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203086285/case-speluncean-explorers-peter-suber



  • Click on the "Free Access" button on the top right corner of the page.



  • Sign in or register with your email address and password.



  • Click on the "Download Book" button on the top right corner of the page.



  • Select the format you prefer (PDF or EPUB) and click on "Download".



  • Save the file to your device and enjoy reading!



The disclaimer and warning




Before you download the book, please note that:



  • The book is for personal use only and not for commercial purposes.



  • The book is protected by copyright and intellectual property laws and you should respect them.



  • The book may contain opinions and views that are not endorsed or supported by Bing or its affiliates.



  • The book may contain errors or inaccuracies that are not corrected or verified by Bing or its affiliates.



  • The book may not be suitable for all audiences and may contain sensitive or controversial content that may offend some readers.



Please read the book at your own risk and discretion. Bing is not responsible for any consequences or damages that may arise from your use of the book.


Conclusion




In this article, we have given you an overview of The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, a classic article by Lon L. Fuller that presents a fictional legal case and five possible solutions. We have also introduced you to The Case of Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions, a book edited by Peter Suber that contains nine new opinion


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page