When men return to the naturalistic state of living, free from all human interventions and social standards, certain laws shall cease to apply. In particular, situations should challenge the flexibilities of rigid regulations, for human ingenuity may not anticipate all possible outcomes outside of human societies. The case of the Speluncean explorers epitomises survival situations that take place in the state of nature. This case challenges the coverage of legal concerns, and demands the reconsideration of the Court in judging the defendants. Due to the substantial difference between the "civilised" societies that involve citizenship and governance, and the quasi-savage, uninhabited lands, the defendants in this case should not be convicted or persecuted for the killing for a fellow explorer.

 

     It is essential to note that the explorers experienced scarcity in essential supplies and hindrances in receiving proper rescue. The future of the group seemed predetermined: gloomy; for the men could not survive without sufficient food and water, as confirmed by parties who had the capacity and authority to evaluate the impending issue, including physicians, judges, priests and government officials. For instance, the physicians saw that under so severe a condition, it was hardly possible for the explorers to be exempt from death. As human influences were almost completely absent, the explorers devoted their efforts in contacting all possible parties for judgements and assistance. However, due to intense pressure associated with responsibility, majority of the professionals who could potentially solve the issue offered limited response to the predicament. This served as one of the group's primary obstacles faced.

 

     Whilst killing another man is inexcusable from all civilized societies by legislation, it is man's basic instinct to remain unharmed from unexpected factors that can easily deprive his freedom to life. In the case of the Speluncean explorers, the defenders hesitantly decided, after careful discussions, plans, considerations and re-measurements to eat the flesh of one of the members along with the victim (Roger Whetmore), who, in reality, played a leading role in the final decision of using a dice to select the victim. With the backdrop of an unfamiliar natural setting, the members involved in the accident were thoroughly isolated from the common rules of government since they could hardly secure their fundamental access to nutrition the way they could in towns or villages. Whetmore, the mastermind in solving the issue, could think of no measure more rational and less radical than killing one of the group members, in order to secure the privilege of surviving the adversity for all other members. It would be much more humane to end the life of one of the explorers than to let all involved die with hope and regret, provided that everyone approved of the decision. With no introduction of better survival policies, the men were determined to accomplish the unethical deed which Whetmore was largely responsible for devising. Thus, Whetmore's ultimate downfall was partly the product of his own ingenuity. As the devisor of the scheme, Whetmore would have been acquainted with a possibility to anticipate his own death from the decision made.

 

     Intentional murder, in governed communities, is unacceptable for the immoral and unethical aspects which are unjustifiable in majority of instances. However, this case clearly distinguishes itself from ordinary intentional killing for several obvious reasons. Firstly and emphatically, the condition that the event took place was largely incomparable to all other situations which law aimed to protect its citizens from: nature is always beyond man's control - man may not defeat nature. The purpose of the promise of executing any individual who deprive others' liberty to life is to promote greater safety in the circumscribed zone of local areas of the state. In this special case, however, the region was notably excluded from the concerned state of the legislation. Secondly, the law remains flexible that in defense of one's life, a person may kill another person who poses threat to his or her liberty or security. Likewise in this case, natural conditions and unforeseen factors played central roles in endangering the circumstance of all participants of the expedition. In order to defend individual rights with a common purpose (of enabling as many people as possible to survive the incident), the defendants had to make this decision though they undoubtedly understood its immoral side. Despite the clear awareness of the defendants of killing the victim, it was the stress of survival which pressed the men to prioritise the welfare of a relative majority over a minority composed of a single person. Whilst crimes of murder committed in normal societies are mostly driven from self-interest and conflicts, the motive of this case is to do justice to most of the people who wish to survive, a simple desire to fulfill essential rights for majority. Thirdly, while murderers commonly seek no advice nor hint to outsiders about the intention of doing so, the defenders openly begged advice and information from all relevant personnel they could possibly contact. Not only does the notification of third parties differentiate the case from other attempts and deeds of murder, the level of knowledge of a potential murder was evidently suggested by and to the victim himself, as well as to all members of the exploration group.

 

     The case of the Speluncean explorers clearly illustrates the limitations of applying human-devised laws and regulations to rare occasions. It should be widely accepted by the Court and all legal professionals that law has its own limitations, particularly outside of the governed boundaries where situations are notably much more complicated and unexpected than that of the hackneyed world. In this case, therefore, law regarding liberty to life shall not be rigorously applied to convict or execute the defendants. Instead, the case should be treated with flexibility. Instances as such should extend the encouragement of flexibility in rigorous legal arrangements, where the notably varied context should be taken into account.