Speluncean Explorers," Lon Fuller (1949) used a fictitious incident involving four explorers, members of a cave-exploring club, to demonstrate the issues surrounding the divergent perspectives of natural law and positivism (p. 616-645). In Fuller's hypothetical account, the four explorers were trapped in a cave for more than 23 days without sufficient food and water. On the twenty-third day, in a last effort to stay alive, three members ate the fourth. Was such an act one of self-defense? Should the men's behavior be judged by the laws of man or the laws of nature?
By setting up such a "real life" scenario, Fuller enables us to wrestle with questions relevant to the underlying principles of natural law and positivism. In his account, a positivist stance will produce the death penalty for the three cannibals, while a natural law stance will produce an acquittal, or at least leniency, for the men who were forced to consume one of their own. Do positivists have the strength of their convictions? Can an argument of extenuating circumstances be used to absolve murder--much more, cannibalism?
The statute of law relevant in the case of the speluncean explorers states the following: "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death" (Fuller, 1949, p. 619). This law of the Commonwealth is an example of positive law, a supreme rule to be unconditionally obeyed. Fuller (1949) notes, "This statute permits no exception applicable to this case, however our sympathies may incline us to make allowances for the tragic situation in which these men found themselves (p. 619).
One of Fuller's spokesmen, J. Foster, argues that the positive law of the Commonwealth should not be used to argue this case, because such a law is based on the assumption that men can, and should be expected to, coexist. In a situation involving sure starvation, the cave explorers could not reasonably have been expected to coexist peace...