The Case of

the
Speluncean
Explorers
SUMMARY

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers was created by Lon Fuller in his article, "The Case of
the Speluncean Explorers," Harvard Law Review, vol. 62, no. 4 (1949) pp. 616-645. The case
tells the story of a group of spelunkers (cave-explorers) in the Commonwealth of Newgarth,
trapped in a cave by a landslide. As they approach the point of starvation, they make radio
contact with the rescue team. Engineers on the team estimate that the rescue will take another
10 days. The men describe their physical condition to physicians at the rescue camp and ask
whether they can survive another 10 days without food. The physicians think this very
unlikely. Then the spelunkers ask whether they could survive another 10 days if they killed
and ate a member of their party. The physicians reluctantly answer that they would. Finally,
the men ask whether they ought to hold a lottery to determine whom to kill and eat. No one at
the rescue camp is willing to answer this question. The men turn off their radio, and some
time later hold a lottery, kill the loser, and eat him. When they are rescued, they are
prosecuted for murder, which in Newgarth carries a mandatory death penalty.

ISSUES

1) Should the 4 explorers be convicted for the murder of Whetmore under the given
circumstances?
2) Is it ethical to kill another person and consume his flesh for your survival?
3) Does this act come under the purview of Self defense?

ASSUMPTIONS

 The event recounted by the survivors is true.

 They had no prior history of man eating.
 They had scarce resources which were depleted soon.
 There was no other option for survival.

OUR OPINION

1) In the light of the assumptions aforementioned and the extra ordinary circumstances
of the case we believe that from an ethical point of view, the four accused should not
be tried at all. However, while analysing this case from the purview of law they would
be guilty of murder as there existed both the mental and physical aspect of the crime.

2) If the men had not taken this extreme step there would have been five deaths instead
of one. From the facts of the case it is clear that it was not easy for the men to take
such a drastic step. They did not have any prior intention of killing Whetmore.
 Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures. Under normal circumstances
they would not have taken another human being’s life. They did it solely for the
purpose of their own survival.

3) If battling hunger can be considered to be self-defence, then the act of the accused can
come under the purview of self-defence. The four had no intention to kill and was
merely a means of survival. Only after extensive deliberations, did they realise that
they had no other option for survival, but to sacrifice the life of one of them and
survive on his flesh.