I believe that the spelunkers were justified in killing their traveling companion, Roger Whetmore. One of the reasons is because all of these spelunkers were fully aware that there was little likelihood they were going to survive, for the next ten days, in the condition they were in. This was clearly transmitted and answered by the committee chairman who had full knowledge of the spare rations they had along with all their various physical conditions. Whetmore even confirmed with one of the physicians that they would survive if they ate one of the other explorers. So, the spelunkers knowing that if nothing was done, all of them would die, made a completely rational and justified choice by killing Roger Whetmore. They also made sure that by …show more content…
These explorers removed any prejudice that may have existed between anyone of themselves and any form of intent or motive, so, the killing of Whetmore was for the sole purpose of survival. However, one might say that Roger and one of the other members of the expedition backed out of this proposal and should not be included in this process. By excluding them from the agreement it causes a few conflicts: what would the three members do if Roger and/or this other women had a change of heart once one of the members had been killed? Would it be fair to disclude them from the “lottery” and let them reap the benefits afterwards (still eat the human flesh and survive without any risk to themselves)? I think it would be incredibly unlikely that Roger or the women would have refrained from eating another human being as our instincts would incline us to try to survive no matter what the cost. Even in the story we see that the women who had sided with Whetmore and was having second-thoughts eventually ate human flesh. Considering all of this, it was right for the survivors to include all members of the society in this