Philosophy of Law A
Questions within three days office.eip@uvt.nl
Hoorcollege 1 30-08-2017
Module A: Introducing Philosophies of Law
Lon Fuller’s case of the Speluncean Explorers
The case of the speluncean explorers
Four explorers get stuck in a cave and run out of food. They kill one and eat him in
order to survive. Later they are rescued but trialed for murder. On one hand, there is
an argument that it’s murder, but you can also argue that it was self-defense. The
explorers were justified to kill one of them, because if they didn’t they would have
died. The question in this case is; ‘was he willfully being killed?’
Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death art. 12a
NCSA. But, how do we decide this case?
- Thinking of law legal doctrine you can look at the facts, the legal norm and
then you have an answer.
- Thinking about law legal philosophy They did not WANT to kill him, they
wanted to survive.
Legal precedents
Lifeboat cases in which a shipwreck at sea was followed by a homicide and legal
prosecution
US vs Holmes homicide to lighten an overloaded lifeboat: utilitarian argument if
u can sacrifice few and save many!!
Ship is doing to sink. They fill up lifeboat, but lifeboat is too full. If it sinks everyone
may die. Sailor Holmes stars throwing a lot of passengers overboard and boat does
not sink. He only throws passengers overboard and no sailors. Homes said he
sacrificed a few to save many when charged with manslaughter. It was homicide to
lighten an overloaded lifeboat. Court said: guilty, Holmes failed to make a fair
selection of the people who he threw overboard. You need a certain number of
sailors to keep the boat from sinking but any number over that would mean he didn't
make a fair selection because he only threw passengers, no sailors.
- Emphasis on fair procedure to select those individuals whose shall die
Regina vs Dudley & Stephens homicide to feed starving survivors: moral
argument it is always morally wrong to kill people, whatever the case is (finds its
moral in the public opinion to punishing the perpetrators)
Boat sank, they stayed in lifeboat and had no food for 19 days. One of them started
drinking salt water knowing they would not survive much longer. One of the sailors
proposed they should have a lottery to see which passenger should be killed and
eaten in order to stay alive. The weakest, Parker, was killed and eaten. After a few
days, they were rescued. They were prosecuted for murder. Judge said there is a
moral prohibition to kill other people. This moral prohibition is reflected in the law.
The law attributes a moral prohibition against killer other people. They were
sentenced to death, but later pardoned by the queen.
- Emphasis on the moral wrong involved in killing people
,Motivation judges
Truepenny (verdict should be affirmed= veroordeling): The language of the
Statute allows for no exceptions. Law is law even when it’s unjust legal positivism.
But: the Supreme Court must join the plea for clemency addressed to the executive
(Chies Executive). Justice will be accomplished without impairing either the letter or
the spirit of our statutes and without offering any encouragement for the disregard of
the law. De wet is duidelijk en laat geen uitzonderingen toe, omwille van de
rechtvaardigheid steunt hij wel het gratieverzoek. Dus een dilemma tussen recht en
rechtvaardigheid (clemency). Maar, de rechtvaardigheid is volgens hem
voorbehouden aan de koning dus rechtvaardigheid ligt buiten het recht!
Foster (conviction must be set aside=vrijspraak) (natural law tradition): he says
our law does not apply to this case because the explorers were in a state of nature.
Or if the law is applicable, but must be interpreted in a way that serves its purpose.
We need interpretation! He thinks its self-defense. A man can break the letter of the
law, without breaking the law itself. Omwille van de rechtvaardigheid moeten de
grotverkenners worden vrijgesproken.
- Territorially: cave, no communication with the outside world.
- Morally: the extremes of their situation (dat ze niet meer konden samenleven,
maar bezig waren met overleven)
- Contractually: agreement in the cave, created a new legal order. Dit sociale
contract is de basis voor het nieuwe recht.
He says a conviction would be contrary to the purpose of the law.
The positive law must be interpreted 'reasonably' in the light of 'it's evident purpose'
And it is not the purpose of the law to convict someone of willingly killing another out
of self-defense. you have to ask: ‘is it the right thing to do (morally right)?’ any
norm posed in an authority’s legal text has to be understood before it can be applied.
Als het recht dan toch van toepassing is, dan moet het op een manier worden
toegepast die morel geloofwaardig is.
Hij beroep zich op beide argumenten op de moraal. Hij zegt dat ook heel duidelijk aan
het begin van zijn betoog Omwille van de rechtvaardigheid. Door een beroep te doen
op de rechtvaardigheid en een hogere wet, die hoger staat dan de wet van Newgarth,
vertegenwoordigt Foster het natuurrecht.
the natural law tradition
is ‘natural’ in the sense that it is not at the disposition of state institutions (parliaments,
courts etc.)
positive law:
- Law created by human beings
- No necessary connection between law and morality
Natural law:
- Law of God, reason or humanity
- Law incorporates morality
Tatting (withdraws from the decision=weigert): has critique on the territorially
argument that the explorers created a new and own legal order in the cave. Hoe,
waardoor overgang positief recht naar natuurtoestand/ander recht? Can people just
, decide they don’t want to be part of a legal order? They can only judge these people
from the capacity of their legal order. If hunger does not justify theft, how does hunger
justify killing another human being? He finds it absurd to put the explorers to death,
after all the help to rescue them. What if the judge doesn’t know what to choose?
Answer below. Wat moet je nou als rechter doen, als het recht je echt niet zint? Wat
zijn de grenzen van het recht? Foster zegt dat de moraal de grens is.
Keen (judgement should be affirmed=veroordeling) (rechtspositivism): it is a
legal question, not a moral question! The explorers’ act must be judged according to
the ‘plain meaning’ of the law (literal interpretation). interpretation of the law according
to its purpose is not necessary and interferes with the competence of the law-maker.
The court does not have to involve with the politics who have made the law
separation of power! Rechter moet een juridisch antwoord geven, op een juridische
vraag, niet een morel antwoord op een morele vraag. Vind ook dat je de soeverein
niet om gratie kan vragen. Onacceptabele gevolgevn van Foster: interpretative kent
nieuwe betekenissen toe aan het recht, dat kan niet omwille de rechtszekerheid &
scheiding der machten komt in het geding.
Citizens and judges: two types of reasoning?
Keen as a private citizen thinks the men have suffered enough, but in his official title
as a judge his opinion is that the men must be killed. Because as judge he is of
opinion that he must judge the men according to the plain meaning of the written law.
He is op opinion that his opinion as judge, other than his opinion as private person
should not be stimulated by moral or emotional aspects. The law-maker is
responsible for the (moral) content of the law that judges are asked to apply.
Handy (judgement should be set aside) (legal realism & legal instrumentalism):
we don’t need rules, we need to use our common sense and then you will find that
men should not be killed. Judges should look at what society thinks and this is how
they should decide. Because they preserve a good relation between themselves as
rules and society as ruled. Foster also talks about common sense but this is morally,
handy about society. He says the powers should operate together to come up with a
solution. Legal realism= law is a human creature, and judges are human beings.
There is no separation between public and private (keen). Vindt het belachelijk dat
rechter onderscheid maakt tussen wat een rechter vindt als prive persoon of als
rechter, vindt ook dat je persoonlijke overwegingen en je moraal wel invloed moeten
hebben op je uitspraak. Handy does not believe in the separation of powers. In het
toepassen van recht ligt altijd een menselijke realiteit aan ten grondslag.
Legal instrumentalism
Law is an instrument to pursue goals that society sets itself. Handy: ‘What we need to
do is follow the majority of society only then law will serve society and its purpose.’
Legal realism
Law is a human creature, and judges are human beings. Justice Handy:
Implausibility of division between ‘impersonal’ and ‘personal’ standpoint.
Om te weten wat recht is, moet je kijken naar wat het maakt dat rechters een
bepaalde beslissing nemen.
