Morally Pi did right by killing the French cook. He was caught in a state of nature. He did not have any other way to get out. As we are referring to case of “Speluncean explorers”, where the defendants killed one to survive and it was justified to kill one in order to save the life of four. It may have been the case that cook would kill Pi. As law of jungles applies in jungle, so here in a state of nature laws of nature should be applied, this allows Pi to kill cook. As J. Foster also stated in case of “Spleuncean explorers” that the defendants were in a state of nature so rules of nature should be applied rather than Newgarth’s rule.
No Pi has not done anything wrong by killing French cook. As stated above he was caught in a nature where he did not have any way to come out. As Pi had already gone numerous day without any form of nourishment. So he was near death, and perhaps if he had waited just another day he would die naturally and French cook could not also survive many days without shelter so Pi has taken right step by killing French cook and shelter himself by eating his liver and heart. So Pi has just saved his life by killing the French cook he has not done anything wrong by killing as
…show more content…
As in any situation murder is the crime and the defendant should get conviction however in some situation merci is also granted by government executive . In the case of “Speluncean explorer” J.Foster states that normal law did not apply to nature and even CJ.Trupenny states that statue is unambiguous and must be applied by judiciary notwithstanding personal views but he request the executive to provide clemency to all four persons but J.Handy said court should take account of public opinion and common sense but in the case of “Speluncean explore” chief executive has not granted any merci despite strong public opinion. So in this case also Pi should get conviction rather than