Laws and Morals Friday September 10, 2010 Agenda: 1. Class definition: What are morals? 2. Law and Morals Quick Quiz (as a class) 3. Activity: What would you do? 4. Case Discussion as a class: R v. Dudley and Sevens (1884) 5. Individual Case Study to be handed in at the end of class

What are morals? Can people have a different set of morals? How do you decide what are morals? Who influences our moral decision making? Can our morals change based on different factors such as age and experience? What are some morals that you have the others might not?

Law and Morality - Laws through time In what year was Capital punishment abolished (the death penalty, killing someone over a crime they have been convicted of) a b c d In what year did Saskatchewan make it illegal for any white women or girl to live with or work for a man of Chinese Heritage (the law was changed and considered against the Charter 2 years later. a b c d In what year was it decided that homosexuality was no longer a Capital Offence (punishable by law) a b.1975 c d. 2005

I n what year were abortion laws changed because it was believed they violated a women’s rights a b c d In what year was assisted suicide (having a doctor help a terminally ill patient kill themselves) considered legal a b c d. it is still illegal In what year did Ontario first recognize gay marriages a b c d In what year did Ontario’s law on prohibiting smoking in enclosed spaces come into effect? a.1999 b c d. 2009

What would you do? Read over the different scenarios on your hand out and decide: 1. Legally, what do you think you should do? 2. Morally, what do you think you should do? 3. Realistically, what do you think you would do?

R. v. Dudley and Stevens (1884) Read the case and think about the questions that follow. In the summer of 1883, Tom Dudley and his crew of two, Stevens and Brooks, set sail from England to Australia. Richard Parker, a 17 year-old cabin boy was also on board. Th mignonette sank on July 3, and the four took refuge in the yacht's dinghy (a small raft type boat) with only a few rations. After 18 days, Dudley and Stevens suggested to Brooks that one of the four should be sacrificed to save the rest. Brooks did not agree, and Parker was not consulted. On the 20th day, Parker became quite weak, and Dudley, with Steven's approval, killed Parker.

The three lived on Parker's flesh and drank his blood over the next four days until they were rescued. At the time, it was accepted practice for sailors in peril to resort to cannibalism in order to survive. This practice at sea, however was in conflict with the law of the land. Consequently, on their return to England, Dudley and Stevens were charged with murder. Brooks testified against them. The jury could not reach a verdict, and the case was sent to a panel of five judges. The judges rejected the idea of "necessity" - that it was necessary to kill and eat Parker for survival. The found Dudley and Stevens guilty and sentenced them to hang. Public sympathy was on the side of the sailors, and later the Crown changed the sentence to six month's imprisonment.

1. What is the difference between laws and morals in this case? 2. In your opinion, was this a life or death situation? Should it matter? 3. In your opinion, should the public's opinion of the case have any influence on the court's decision? Why or Why not? 4. What would your verdict be in this case? Explain.

Assignment: Case #1 Read the case Christie v. York and answer the questions that follow. This is your first case study assignment and should be handed in at the end of class or first thing tomorrow morning.