It is universally accepted that killing someone is immoral and should be punishable. The fact of spelunkers is of four best friends who have been trapped in a cave after their spelunking activity is met with uncertainty. Initially, they had planned to go for mountain climbing but decided to change their course. The second day they are exploring the cave after they heard a voice coming from the inside; they end up being trapped inside, with limited food, water, and even lighting materials. They come up with an absurd idea to sacrifice one of them, drawing straws that hold their fates. Paul refuses to be of the group but ends up being sacrificed. After the three men are saved from the cave almost a month later, there is an outrageous reaction from the public following the incident (Lawhorne, 2014) . The essay will be discussing the three men’s decision to sacrifice their friend, analyzing the background information that leads to the three friends sacrifice their friend and the circumstances that led to them being trapped. Lastly, the essay will focus on the fate of the three remaining friends.
Decision
According to the text, the four friends had agreed to go for mountain climbing but later changed the idea, which led them to go for cave exploration. This decision changed the entire course of their plan (Lawhorne, 2014) . Due to their curiosity, the second day of their spelunking, they decided to venture deep in the cave, almost a mile in until they found that they could not go further. Trying to go back, they discovered that their entrance had been blocked, and any effort to open it was not successful. They were trapped inside for almost five and a half weeks, leading to them having illogical decision to sacrifice one of them. They made Paul, an innocent person, who had decided not to be part of the “life gambling group” pay for their situation of being trapped in the cage. They had to come up with an impulsive decision to kill their friend. This was unlikely as they were friends. This brings us to the next topic, the background information of every person.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Background Information
The four friends had different backgrounds . Of the four friends, Paul was not employed, and as such, one can conclude that he was the least in terms of social class. Peter was an ordained minister, Greg was wealthy as he had inherited his parents’ fortune, and John was an eBay executive. Peter and Paul, we single while Paul had a child from his previous marriage. However, they were best friends (Lawhorne, 2014) . Let's focus on their background information more in-depth. Other than the idea to survive, Greg, who came up with the concept, was selfish to protect his fortune and, as such, decided to sacrifice one of their own. Paul was innocent and did not participate in the sacrificing process. As such, as the other three were influential, they blindly killed the less prominent in the group and used him as the bait for survival. It can be assumed that due to the difference in the background information of the four friends, it leads to the arrival of the solution in the situation they were in.
Situation
The four friends were in a difficult situation, being trapped in a cavern for five and a half weeks with their supply slowly fading, they decided to reveal their other side; dark side. This was first brought up by Greg, presumably the richest of them all. They had to do what they could to survive, and they arrived at sacrificing their friend. They ended the life of a father, yet the most unfortunate of them all, as he was not even in the “game” to decide who would be sacrificed (Lawhorne, 2014) . There are several possible reasons as to why they chose to forgo Paul, irrespective of the fact that he was not willing to sacrifice any of them. He wanted to survive and his friends too, that is why he did not second what Greg had advocated. They played a game and the last straw, which was the shortest, they assumed that it would be Paul’s and as such, went ahead and killed him. No reason is enough as to why they killed him, even if they needed to survive. No human has the right to end another person's life, also if it means survival (Juni, 2016) .
Although the writer states that they did not have enough food, this did not justify them to kill their friend. The writer says that they knew that around half a mile, there was water trickling in the cave, and they would have used this as their survival mechanism, rather than sacrificing their friend. Humans can survive longer with water than with food (Lawhorne, 2014) . This means that instead of sacrificing Paul, they would have found their way to the water source and be able to drink from it until they found safety. Water would have acted as a safety mechanism and who knows, maybe they would have found a route to get outside or something to feed on at the water source. Looking at the above situations, murdering Paul was not the right action to take, and as such, they should face the fate of their efforts.
Fate
The murder can be termed as second-degree murder as the three friends conducted an unlawful, yet intentional murder but premeditated. They survived, but at the peril of their innocent friend. They killed their friend, a serious case, and the act of cannibalism. This is a violation of human rights and should not go unanswered. The felony is a serious offense and should be addressed in a court of law (Seibold, 2017) . Just for killing their friend, there needs to be a judgment passed on the issue, and the three friends should face the law on their actions to kill their friend (Turiel, 2015) . Every action has a consequence, and they should be set as an example.
Conclusion
In many countries across the globe, murder is a criminal offense, and the convict should be sentenced in a court of law. Although the three friends were doing something out of their survival instincts, they should have focused more on ensuring that they all get out alive. Rush decisions are detrimental and can cause a person enormous consequences at the end. Every person in society is faced with the need to come up with bright choices before concluding. They had the option to find the water source and consequently find their way out, but through impulsive thinking, they killed their own. Communication is a critical component in every person's life, and as such, it is crucial always to tell others when you change plans, in case unprecedented situations arise.
References
Juni, S. (2016). Survivor guilt: A critical review from the lens of the Holocaust. International Review of Victimology, 22 (3), 321-337.
Lawhorne, B. (2014). The case of the spelunkers fact pattern [Word Document] . Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1084877/files/33488769?module_item_id=7274760
Seibold, J. H. (2017). The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of a Viable Doctrine. The Catholic Lawyer, 23 (2), 8.
Turiel, E. (2015). Moral development. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science , 1-39.
