Consider the following factual situation taken from an English judge's decision in 1884:
"The crews of an English yacht.were cast away in a storm on the high seas.and were compelled to put into an open boat belonging to the said yacht. That in this boat they had no supply of water and no supply of food..That on the eighteenth day. they.suggested that one should be sacrificed to save the rest..That next day. they.went to the boy.put a knife into his throat and killed him then and there; that the three men fed upon the body.of the boy for four days; that on the fourth day after the act had been committed the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued, still alive.. That they were carried to the port of Falmouth, and committed for trial.That if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and rescued, but would within the four days have died of famine. That the boy, being in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them..The real question in this case [is] whether killing under the conditions set forth.be or be not murder." [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)] Do you consider the acts to be murder? Was the action immoral?