Pang Ying:Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to Episode 24 of Think Like a Debater, the second debate in Part Three. Once again, my opposing debater is Zhan Qingyun.

Our motion is “Are the Killers in The Case of the Speluncean Explorers Guilty?” Zhan chose the negative, not guilty, leaving me to argue guilty.

This motion is connected to our previous one, allowing us to examine the related questions more thoroughly and deeply.

As the affirmative, I will open the case.

Let me briefly introduce The Case of the Speluncean Explorers.

A group of explorers were trapped inside a cave by a landslide. Because they had told others when to expect their return, rescue efforts began almost immediately.

On the twentieth day, rescuers established radio contact and said rescue would take about ten more days. Experts told the trapped explorers that they could not survive that long without food.

Later, they asked whether eating one person might enable the others to survive. After a silence, an expert said it could. One explorer proposed that the six draw lots and that the other five eat the person selected.

Before the draw, the proposer changed his mind and suggested waiting another week. The other five refused to let him withdraw and drew on his behalf. Asked whether the draw was fair, he raised no objection. By chance he was selected, killed, and eaten; the others were rescued.

After leaving the cave, the survivors were tried for murder.

I believe they are guilty for three reasons.

First, law recognizes self-defense and necessity as exceptions to homicide, but this killing satisfies neither.

Self-defense is easily excluded because the victim did not threaten anyone. Necessity has even stricter requirements to prevent abuse.

Among other things, the danger must be occurring, no reasonable alternative may exist, and harm must be kept to a minimum. Therefore,when alternatives exist, the least harmful must be chosen.These killers did not follow the just process required by necessity.