Introduction
This essay explores whether Thomas Hobbes, a prominent 17th-century political philosopher, would consider the courts’ decision to convict Dudley and Stephens of murder in the 1884 case of R v Dudley and Stephens as justified. The case involved the killing of a cabin boy, Richard Parker, by two shipwrecked survivors after over three weeks stranded at sea, raising profound ethical and legal questions about necessity and survival. Hobbes’ philosophy, centred on the social contract and the absolute power of the sovereign to maintain order, provides a lens through which to analyse this verdict. The essay will first outline Hobbes’ key ideas on human nature and law, then apply these to the circumstances of the case, before evaluating whether Hobbes would likely support the court’s ruling. Ultimately, it aims to demonstrate that Hobbes would endorse the conviction, prioritising societal order over individual acts of self-preservation.
Hobbes’ Perspective on Human Nature and the Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work *Leviathan* (1651), argued that in the state of nature, human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” due to individuals’ inherent self-interest and the absence of a governing authority (Hobbes, 1651). To escape this chaotic condition, individuals enter a social contract, surrendering their natural rights to a sovereign who maintains order and enforces laws. Hobbes believed that without such authority, society would descend into anarchy, as personal survival instincts dominate moral or ethical considerations. This framework is crucial when considering the actions of Dudley and Stephens, who, in a state of extreme deprivation, prioritised their survival over the life of another. Hobbes might view their predicament as a microcosm of the state of nature, yet he would likely argue that their actions, once under societal jurisdiction, must be subject to the sovereign’s law.
Application to R v Dudley and Stephens
In R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), the defendants were found guilty of murder after killing Parker to sustain themselves, with the court rejecting the defence of necessity. From Hobbes’ perspective, the court’s decision aligns with the need to uphold the authority of the law, as allowing necessity to justify murder would undermine the social contract. Hobbes argued that the sovereign’s power must be absolute to prevent individuals from reverting to the state of nature, where personal judgement supersedes communal rules (Hobbes, 1651). Indeed, permitting Dudley and Stephens to escape punishment could set a dangerous precedent, eroding legal order. Furthermore, Hobbes might contend that, despite the extreme circumstances, the defendants had no right to act as sovereigns over another’s life, a role reserved for the state. However, one might question whether Hobbes would sympathise with their instinct for self-preservation, given his view of human nature as driven by survival. Arguably, this sympathy would be limited, as Hobbes prioritised societal stability over individual acts.
Evaluation of Hobbes’ Likely Stance
Analysing Hobbes’ philosophy, it seems clear that he would support the court’s decision to convict Dudley and Stephens. His insistence on the indivisibility of sovereign authority suggests that exceptions, even in dire situations, threaten the fabric of society. The legal principle upheld in 1884 resonates with Hobbes’ belief that laws must be enforced consistently to deter chaos. While Hobbes acknowledges the desperation inherent in the state of nature, he would likely argue that once rescued and returned to society, Dudley and Stephens were bound by its rules. This aligns with scholarly interpretations of Hobbes, which emphasise his rigid stance on obedience to law as a safeguard against anarchy (Tuck, 1999). Therefore, the conviction serves as a necessary reinforcement of the state’s power, a principle central to Hobbesian thought.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes would likely believe that the courts were correct in finding Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder. His philosophy, rooted in the necessity of a strong sovereign to prevent societal collapse, supports the enforcement of law even in cases of extreme hardship. By prioritising order over individual survival instincts, Hobbes would view the conviction as a vital affirmation of the social contract. This analysis highlights the tension between personal morality and legal obligation, a debate that remains relevant in modern jurisprudence. Ultimately, Hobbes’ framework reminds us of the enduring importance of maintaining authority, even when faced with the most challenging ethical dilemmas.
References
- Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
- Tuck, R. (1999) The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
