My analysis of The Case of the Speluncean Explorers

On February 9, 1963, William Zantzinger, a wealthy white tobacco farmer hit a black
waitress by the name Hattie Carroll with a cane and killed her. The killer was
sentenced to six months imprisonment. This incident inspired Bob Dylans artistically
and politically conscious song; The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll. Dylan wrote
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears, bury the rag deep in
your face, for nows the time for your tears. Dylans call for equity and distributive
justice was well timed and added expression to the plight of black Americans who
courageously fought for their rights as equal subjects of the commonwealth during the
Civil Rights Movement. Those who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears are
lawmakers and politicians who must be humane and recognize the structural problem
in their judicial system. In the same manner I wanted to write about the case of the
Speluncean explorers who got trapped in a cave when an unfortunate landslide left
them stranded in a cave. I think the case of the four defendants from Newgarth points
to a wrongful charge because the law must bring justice by any means necessary.
The failure of the law to bring justice and punish an act of murder must evaluate the
situation and can never be simplified to an absolute statement saying, Whoever shall
willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death. Both the Hattie Carroll
case and the Case of the Speluncean Explorers require us to evaluate the social
contract and how to address the failure of a sovereign that is supposed to protect all its
subjects equally by bringing peace and security. George Orwells saying that, all
animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others points to such
problems that challenge the sovereigns intent and function. What good is a statute if it
cannot brig security and self preservation to all people regardless of their race, creed,
religion or gender in Hattie Carrolls case? In the same token how can citizens consent
to the sovereigns authority in the commonwealth when they fear loss; loss of
freedom, loss of life, loss of dignity and in the explorers case loss of distributive
justice? The Hobessian argument is that we prefer being ruled by the sovereign
because it is not as horrific and tames the savage tendencies of other humans in the
state of nature. Hobbes believes in the fundamental equality of all humans, since we

argue that the state is a product of a contract between individuals it must include the
rights of all. The sovereigns authority is a product of the covenant between
individuals

and

must

secure

and

maintain

security

and

peace.

If I were to advise the Supreme Court and Chief Executive of the Commonwealth of
Newgarth, I would ask the trial judges to consider the fact that this case has no
precedents thus the trial judge must deliberate by putting into consideration the
complexity of this case. Looking at the facts and the evidence it is of course easy to
say that these men murdered a fellow explorer, but look beyond their actions. Though
by mens actions we do discover their design sometimes, yet to do it without
comparing them with our own, and distinguishing all circumstances by which the case
may come to be altered, is to decipher without a key and be for the most part deceived
by too much trust or by too much diffidence (Page 24). If we agree that the
allegiance with the state is stronger than that of the relationship people have with
religion, tribe or other groups then we have to look at this case in its essence. If we
reduce all the explorers as humans to their moving parts, minus the soul, and the
metaphysical aspect say their spirit we can have a starting point that does not look at
their

actions

in

metaphysical

terms.

Hobbes maintains a consistent scientific analysis which requires us to look at the

consequences and reasoning behind peoples action in this case; what led the gang of
four to kill Roger Whetmore. After all it was Whetmore who had the ingenuity to
assess their predicament and considered eating the flesh of one of their number to
increase the chances of survival for the rest. Hobbes argues adamantly that the
overriding motivation of human is the desire for self preservation and this
unfortunately became the predicament of the explorers when the landslide delayed the
rescue

effort.

The explorers in the cave understood that all of them were fundamentally equal and
capable of killing each other. For that reason Whetmore had suggested that one person
must sacrifice his life if they are to have any chance. Nature has made men so equal
in the faculties of the body and the mind as thatfor as the strength of body, the
weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secrete machination or by
confederacy with others (page.104) Interestingly it was Whetmore who had the

dice and the victim was chosen at random, which means it was a fair method that the
explorers resorted to, once they knew that was the only way they could survive. In
Chapter 13 Hobbes discusses the natural condition of humans; accordingly he says,
so the nature of war consists not in actual fighting but in the known disposition
thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is
peace. (Page 107) The premises that lead to such a sentiment are competition,
diffidence and glory (p.106). Primarily we compete for goods hoping we can
overpower others, secondly we are defensive and seek safety and thirdly we want
reputation like the saying death before dishonor. In this case the explorers are
competing for their right to stay alive which is understandable given their isolation
from a normal setting where the provision of food and water would not have forced
him

into

such

deeds.

All these men were in the state of nature and were competing for their safety, for the
right to stay alive. The consequence is such a war is every man against every man,
this condition is the worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the
life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Page 107). Consider this in the
state of nature; we can be forced to do things that seem primitive and animalistic; all
in the name of survival. In the words of the great satirist George Carlin, When you
get right down to it, human beings are nothing more than ordinary jungle beasts.
Savages. No different from the Cro Magnon people who lived twenty five thousand
years ago. No different. Our DNA hasn't changed substantially in a hundred thousand
years. We're still operating out of the lower brain. The reptilian brain. Fight or flight.
Kill

or

be

killed.

All the Supreme Court judges; I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. The chief
executive especially must strongly reconsider the petition to pardon them. These men
were not in a house, a bar or just any setting in the city which by default would require
us to judge them with the city laws. We elected you into office to embody the
sovereign and your authority is derived from the will of the people. But the committee
chairman and all the rescue workers understand these people were in a different
circumstance thus comrades I implore you to look harder and think harder. These men
are like any other person in the city and have consented to be ruled. These men were

trapped in a cave and were on the verge of dying, what we are saying is we would
have

preferred

all

five

dying

instead

of

just

one?

All five explorers wanted to stay alive because, the passions that incline men to
peace are fear of death... (p.109) Utilitarianism is preferable to us all, which is to say
it is better for four of the five to stay alive at the expense of one, the contract these
men had with the commonwealth was breached because these men were fighting for
their right to survive. Hobbes understands our tendency to shy away from such a blunt
take on the state of nature and he quaintly asks the reader to examine his/her own
actions, even when we know there are laws and armed public officers, what opinion
do we have of fellow humans when we ride armed, when we lock our doors fearing
other citizens and when we lock our chests in the presence of our children and
servants?

(Page

107)

The right of nature forces each person to use his/her own power for the preservation
of their own life (p.109). Similarly the law of nature obliges humans to protect their
lives so it adds to their freedom, a duty to stay alive. In the laws of nature the first
branch and the fundamental law of nature is, to seek peace and follow it but secondly
defend yourself by any means necessary (Page 110). The second law of nature; which
requires laying down ones rights and seeking security is a derivative of the first law
of nature because you cannot talk about securing yourself from an eminent threat
when your life is on the line and you have to save yourself. We want to believe that we
are not just physical functions; we are rational beings and have freewill which allows
us to resist our impulses and animalistic desires. Thus it is understandable that these
men sought to preserve their lives first before agreeing on a mutually understood
agreement. These men understood that unless they had to do whatever it took to stay
alive, but they wanted to avoid a man versus man war; which would have been
mutually

destructive.

Can the explorers be sentenced because a contract with the sovereign requiring a
transfer of rights from the right of nature are traded for security and peace given they
are still citizens of the Newgarth common wealth. These men entered the state of
nature ones the rescue effort was delayed and as such their contract with the Leviathan
the artificial governing body was temporarily not applicable the same way. They all

voted for who must be sacrificed so there is a deliberate rational effort to maximize
the chances of most people staying alive. The transfer of right presupposes and is
associated with a desire to bring something good unto ourselves and expect a
reciprocation of obligations from others. The five agreed to roll the dice and it was
Whetmores luck that he was the one to be sacrificed; it was repulsive for all of them
at first but became a necessary step in their conquest for survival. It cannot be denied
that once we enter into society we have a covenant with the sovereign, but why do we
do this? We enter society in order to avoid the greatest evil; fear of death which is
eminent in the state of nature. Thus politics becomes less prudential and more
existential; it is a willful choosing of life over death and peace over war. The decision
to charge the defendants as being guilty of murder is preposterous. If any of us were in
their situation we would do the same. The ruling on the defendants must be reversed.
It is invalidated in so far as we illustrate that it is unjust to punish them for violating
the law because their relationship with the sovereign becomes loose and was outside
commonwealth

laws

once

they

were

stuck

in

the

cave.

We must therefore understand that it would be unjust to sentence the survivors of an

unfortunate incident that forced the four explorers to kill a fellow Newgarth citizen.
The killing is however justified because it was done to maximize an outcome favoring
the majority. Moreover the decision to kill one of their own was discussed and agreed
upon the individuals who at the moment were only responsible and bound to the group
and not the state. Hobbes shows us that human behavior is like mechanics, cause and
effect are what drive us for that reason we are situational in our behavior. All the
circumstances that led to the explorers being trapped and having to consider eating the
flesh one of their numbers disgusts, but it was a desperate situation and they were
forced to take desperate measures. After all it was not their choosing to be in that cave,
circumstances de facto the landslide put them in a situation they did not want to be.
If justice is the constant will of giving to every man his own. And therefore where
there is no own-that is no propriety-there is no injustice; and where there is no
coercive power erected-that is where is no commonwealth-there is no propriety, all
men having right to all things; therefore where there is no commonwealth, there
nothing is unjust (p.120). This statement further elucidates the change in standards

and what is accepted because the explorers were trapped, thus their decision cannot be
examined using commonwealth laws. Remember one of the explorers was a justice of
peace and the other a priest so it could have been any of you entrapped in the cave and
what guarantee do we have that you would not have participated in the killing of
Whetmore,

were

you

to

be

in

that

situation?

Hobbes argues that good and evil is something we define, and human nature is
situational. He critiques moral philosophers who overemphasize the case for virtues
and vices in the making of a law and consequently a state. As if not the cause but the
degree of daring made fortitude, or not the cause but the quantity of a gift made
liberality (P.132). The law uses language and reasoning which can sometimes be
limited in evaluating and understanding the complexity of the human situation. The
principles humans use to explain and understand reality using their sensation,
language or arguments are all products of human intellect and there is never an
absolute way. For that reason we should consider all the different perspectives I have
mentioned.
The Chief Executive must understand that the defendants need distributive justice in
the subtext of equity; all subjects are judged according to their actions, the
circumstance they were in, the lack of precedent in this case, the complexity of the
situation, the differing standards of the Commonwealth and the state of nature. It may
and does often happen in commonwealths that a subject may be put to death by the
command of the sovereign power and yet neither do the other wrongin which and
the like case, he that so dies, had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless
without injury put to death (p.173) . The explorers must be given the chance to
challenge the sovereign because they did not receive a fair trial and the judgment
passed on them is not justified; it requires a more complex assessment which puts in
perspective their circumstance. If a subject has a controversy with his sovereign
concerning any penalty, corporal or pecuniary, grounded on a precedent law-he as the
same liberty to sue for his right as if it were against a subject (p.178). The state of
nature is not a pretty image and only those who have experienced can tell you the
horror, the hopelessness and despair it brings along