top of page

Market Research Group

Public·8 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.