Objective of life

Objective of life

The fundamental objective of life is to survive and thrive, but when fellow acquaintances have existence threatened, actions must be taken. What initially begun as a simple excursion to the caves of California, ended up becoming a nightmare for four close friends who got trapped in one of the caverns. As days passed by with the limited food and water they had packed, they had to make life-saving decisions. A conclusion was made that one of them had to be killed and consumed for the rest of the group to continue surviving. They decided to pool straws, and the person who pulled the shortest was going to be killed and cannibalized. Paul lost the gamble, and he was killed. After a month and some days, the remaining friends were rescued and taken back to their society. Upon arrival, they were received with public disgust and also faced homicide charges. When they faced a dilemma involving life or death, they chose what was for their greater good. Regrettably, one of them had to sacrifice himself for the survival of the rest. There were heavy emotions on them to the extent of affecting their normal conscience. The situation they were put in and the wrath they were about to get was justice enough since they deserved no more.

These gentlemen were in a dilemma that needed a wise decision. However, they chose an unimaginable path that could only provide them with food at the expense of their friend. They might have been left with limited available choices with each of them, leading to a worse situation, but they could have thought deeper before going with that of killing. Firstly, they could have done nothing and waited for a rescue with the hope that all of them did not die of starvation. Secondly, they could have just gone ahead and killed one of them as they just did. I think the latter of the two options was chosen because the remaining three were going to survive long enough until rescue arrived. This decision had to be avoided based on morality. They could have pondered on it with the basic instincts of human survival.

Had the three gentlemen followed their ordinary set of societal morals, which did not include acts of murder and cannibalism, they could have been free. However, it can be thought that their actions were triggered by the necessity to get food rather than the desire to kill. Even though the result was not desirable and morally acceptable, to them, it had to be executed. There were no other options bearing in mind that a week had already passed by while in starvation.

Sacrificing one of their own was considered crucial and helpful as soon as the gentlemen became aware that they were in a critical situation. Being trapped in a cave with no food or water left reminded them of the pain of hunger, forcing them to decide on how they will make it out alive. They, therefore, resorted to cannibalizing one of them out of dire necessity and not out of wish. They also had limited hope of being rescued because it was rare for the caves to lack day-trippers regularly. Therefore, death had become a reality for all of them. This might have prompted them to opt for the path they chose on the depressing discovery that one must perish for the remaining three to live.

The idea of pulling straws to decide on who was going to get sacrificed seemed fair and indiscriminate. Any member of the four men on an adventure could have pulled the shortest straw and get selected for the terrible fate. Paul was the only member who opted not to pull a straw but did not have any objections to the selection process.

This means that the murder was not premeditated. It cannot also be considered manslaughter because they did not do it accidentally. That left them with the option of sacrifice because they had to save three lives in return. Unfortunately, it was not only the life of their friend that was lost; they also sacrificed their morals.

Emotions are among the most powerful human aspects. They make humans take actions on their thoughts and often cloud their logic as a result of the suddenness they come in. Emotions are the catalysts and triggers of how we behave and can make us do more harm than good. The likelihood of death becoming an imaginable reality resulted in panic and fear among the Spelunkers. They faced a problem and found an immediate but inappropriate solution. When they faced this predicament, they became hopeless, anxious, and saw that they were going to die. So they had no time of seeking sustainable alternative solutions rather than taking the life of one of their own. The young gentlemen were friends who had planned a great adventure that did not require death as an outcome for survival.

Our ability to decide what is wrong from the right as humans is also very critical. Consciousness makes humans have a higher level of self-awareness than other creatures. It is also imperative because what is viewed as right and wrong varies from one individual to another based on perception. The three gentlemen decided that finding a quick way to survive even if it meant killing one of them. They disregarded the norm that cannibalism is wrong under normal circumstances. However, to them, it became the most appropriate thing to do when they were in such a grave situation.

Moreover, what happened on that fateful trip is also something the friends will forget. Every remaining moment of their lives will evoke memories of the events and the experiences they faced afterwards. They went for that excursion to enjoy themselves and the spirit of adventure. Regrettably, they came out of it with burdens of guilt, shame, and remorse. Their friend might have lost his life on that day, but each of the remaining acquaintances had also lost self-worth and morals for committing such a dreadful act. Facing death might have given them an idea of surviving, but society will never have the same perception.

In a nutshell, it is obvious that the Spelunkers with a genuine possibility of dying. What any average person would do in such situations is to find a possible way of surviving. I think these men should not have been charged with murder. This is as a result of using the only option to make it out of a situation. They were only good friends who wanted to have a good time but thought out of emotions and panic. The young men were also loyal to each other. This can be identified from the criteria they used to select who to sacrifice.

They had no significant option of choosing between life and death, and so a decision was made. They chose the path that provided a quicker solution and was of the greater good for the group at the expense of their friend. The letting of their friend die on their behalf became the group’s redemption. What they did after being trapped for that period became a burden for them and remained in their conscience forever. The pain of letting go of a friend so that the rest of the group can live should have been justice enough for them. Their acquaintance sacrificed him so that they could not only be charged federally but also to escape a natural sentence in the caves. Homicide is done with intent, murder is also committed with malice, but the gentlemen had no initial objective of killing and eating him. Their position was so dire that they had no other option but to kill Paul to survive. Paul might have been dying to live, but he had already agreed with whatever the outcome of the straws was going to be. Although people should not face situations with such extreme consequences, to some extent, critical choices have to be made. The choice might have concerns with regard to morality and social beliefs, but it is important to weigh on the perceived consequences and benefits and make a decision that not everyone agrees with. Whether the decision is made from a personal perspective or in a group, it is critical to gain a perspective by weighing on the extremes such as the spelunkers.