ior of killing a human being. So how do we decide caprice? I believe we have a lawful excuse in justifying killing three individuals based on the following argument.
             The facts are definitely a key to the application of the Doctrine of Necessity in this case. "Necessity knows no law." (The Carleton Department of Law Casebook Group, ed., Introduction to Legal Studies, pp. 38). This applied in context could mean that you cannot be held legally responsible for an act you had to commit. For example, in the R. v. Dudley and Stephens, three sailors and a cabin boy drifted in an open boat a thousand miles from land, the dilemma the men faced was to figure out how to make their supplies last as long as possible. In the end, the cabin boy was eliminated out of necessity for the remaining to survive. From the point of view necessity "knows no law" Dudley and Stevens would not be guilty of the murder of the cabin boy because their killing was crucial for their survival, in other words they "had to commit" it.
             Now I will evaluate who will remain and who will be eliminated in the group based on the normative systems of law, morality, religion, custom, and etiquette. A norm is a behavior that is fairly well recognized in the community at large. The law and norms are related "By virtue of state involvement in their design, promulgation and enforcement" (L. Atkinson, Lecture 5 [Laws 1000a, Carleton University] Oct.4, 2002.) "Normative systems exercise a regulatory impact on how we live our lives"(Atkinson, supra 3 at 3). The normative systems that will help me evaluate each individual are law, morality, religion, custom, and etiquette.
             Law and morality are not identical in principle. Morality deals with right and wrong and good and evil. Law is concerned with a great deal of other things, including procedures. Morality is often indistinct, and provides only general guidelin...