Today’s Daily Prompt will probably be a highly opinionated matter. It says ‘Read the story of Richard Parker and Tom Dudley. Is what Dudley did defensible? What would you have done?’
First off, I’ll summarise the story: A group of four are sailing at sea, on a long trip. They are struck by a gale, a storm of sorts. Releasing the lifeboat, all four were saved and clambered on board. They have minimalist rations, and all but no water. Eventually, the young Richard Parker succumbed and drank sea water. One Stephens also became ill, but Parker ended up in a coma. Eventually, talk began of having a sacrifice, of whom the others would eat. Tom Dudley and Stephens killed the young Parker, and the remaining three ate from him, and survived.
Do I think Dudley’s act was justifiable? Yes, I do. With no rations, all four would have died. Parker, being in a coma, might have survived a little longer, but he’d wind up Alone on a Wide Wide Sea. The eating of Tom Parker allowed the trio to stay alive long enough to see their wife and children. Why should four men die instead of one?
I would have done the same thing. If I could, I would survive to see my family. Perhaps that thought alone would give me the strength.