Hypothetical Dilemma: Plane Crash in the Antarctica

[MindOverMatter2]

A plane goes down in the Antarctica.

You and 10 others (2 of them are your children) are the only survivors out of 40.

The dead are littered all other the crash site.

There is no food.

There is no local help.

There is no plausible possibility of rescue, because nobody knows that your plane exists, or that it has crashed.

The nearest resource centre is close enough to walk, but it is too far away to get there without food. Without food, you will all die before reaching safety.

A member of your group suggests that we can survive the journey if we eat the dead, and carry portions of their body as food stock for the journey. Some members disagree for religious and philosophical reasons.

What will you choose and why do you consider it to be the moral/rational choice?

 

[meltzerboy]

A plane goes down in the Antarctica.

You and 10 others (2 of them are your children) are the only survivors out of 40.

The dead are littered all other the crash site.

There is no food.

There is no local help.

There is no plausible possibility of rescue, because nobody knows that your plane exists, or that it has crashed.

The nearest resource centre is close enough to walk, but it is too far away to get there without food. Without food, you will all die before reaching safety.

A member of your group suggests that we can survive the journey if we eat the dead, and carry portions of their body as food stock for the journey. Some members disagree for religious and philosophical reasons.

What will you choose and why do you consider it to be the moral/rational choice?

As a Jew, I would vote for eating the dead to preserve my own and others’ lives. Jewish Law states that virtually all negative commandments MUST (not may) be broken when any human life is in danger. One exception to this is idolatry. Nonetheless, personally I cannot imagine myself doing such a disgusting thing, at least not from the comfort of my own home, so I might stay put and pray for a miracle. The fact that two of the survivors are my children ups the ante, so In that case, I would probably feed my children and myself and take the journey to be rescued. If my children were not among the living, I would simply pray.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

As a Jew, I would vote for eating the dead to preserve my own and others’ lives. Jewish Law states that virtually all negative commandments MUST (not may) be broken when any human life is in danger. One exception to this is idolatry. Nonetheless, personally I cannot imagine myself doing such a disgusting thing, at least not from the comfort of my own home, so I might stay put and pray for a miracle. The fact that two of the survivors are my children ups the ante, so In that case, I would probably feed my children and myself and take the journey to be rescued. If my children were not among the living, I would simply pray.

I did not know that about the commandments from a Jewish standpoint. If I’m not mistaken that’s exactly the opposite of Catholics, who believe that the ends never justify the means and that you can’t do evil even if good comes from it. That’s interesting.

 

[Ghosty]

Eating the dead isn’t necessarily immoral, so I’d have no objection to eating them. If it was my corpse I would hope that they would eat me to save those who had survived. This isn’t even a dilemma for me.

 

[Bezant]

A plane goes down in the Antarctica.

You and 10 others (2 of them are your children) are the only survivors out of 40.

The dead are littered all other the crash site.

There is no food.

There is no local help.

There is no plausible possibility of rescue, because nobody knows that your plane exists, or that it has crashed.

The nearest resource centre is close enough to walk, but it is too far away to get there without food. Without food, you will all die before reaching safety.

A member of your group suggests that we can survive the journey if we eat the dead, and carry portions of their body as food stock for the journey. Some members disagree for religious and philosophical reasons.

What will you choose and why do you consider it to be the moral/rational choice?

First of all, let me say YUCK.

This is an abomination but, assuming there’s some means of cooking the bodies, I’d say that the religious and philosophical objections to disrespecting the dead are suspended in favour of allowing the living to survive in a desperate situation.

There’s nothing you can do for the dead and very little you can do to respect the dead in this situation anyway. You couldn’t bury them, and leaving the bodies to lie around the wreckage isn’t really proper, either. The living can always return to collect the remains later.

And while the dead can wait, the living can’t – it’s not like the living have much of a choice if their survival matters (and it should). I would assume that there wouldn’t be much time to eat the bodies before they froze. And Antarctica is one of the most hostile places in the world – not only would such a journey be too far without food, the environment would make it too difficult.

 

[Bezant]

I did not know that about the commandments from a Jewish standpoint. If I’m not mistaken that’s exactly the opposite of Catholics, who believe that the ends never justify the means and that you can’t do evil even if good comes from it. That’s interesting.

That’s not true. Even in extreme situations, for example, the Church allows Catholics to take measures that could unintentionally cause an abortion and save a mother’s life.

 

[ValPal]

My answer is “I don’t know.” The one thing I do know is that if I was traveling to a remote region, I would be prepared for a survival situation.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That’s not true. Even in extreme situations, for example, the Church allows Catholics to take measures that could unintentionally cause an abortion and save a mother’s life.

Exactly. But you don’t get to actively cause the abortion. Just like it would be wrong to actively kill someone to save even 100 people. If abortion is a side-effect of saving the mother’s life that’s one thing, but abortion, even for a good cause is not allowed.

 

[Rolltide]

This exact situation actually happened and formed the basis of the movie “Alive”. A plane crashed in the Andes and a group of survivors had to eat the dead in order to stay alive. Interestingly, most of them were Catholic, and the Vatican actually gave an official ruling on this one. Since the people that were eaten were clearly dead, and there was no other conceivable alternative, the ruling was that eating the bodies essentially fell under the same general ethical rules as organ donation. Simply put, a body part of someone that was already dead was being used to keep another alive. The Vatican officially stated that the survivors had done nothing wrong.

 

[meltzerboy]

Exactly. But you don’t get to actively cause the abortion. Just like it would be wrong to actively kill someone to save even 100 people. If abortion is a side-effect of saving the mother’s life that’s one thing, but abortion, even for a good cause is not allowed.

In Torah Judaism, the ONLY situation in which abortion is permitted–even required–is when the mother’s life is in danger. This is based on the notion that the unborn child is the, albeit innocent, “pursuer” of the mother’s life. The Oral Law explains this concept in detail. Rape and incest cases receive leniencies in the Law, but not all Orthodox rabbis agree.

 

[meltzerboy]

I did not know that about the commandments from a Jewish standpoint. If I’m not mistaken that’s exactly the opposite of Catholics, who believe that the ends never justify the means and that you can’t do evil even if good comes from it. That’s interesting.

Saving human life always takes priority in Judaism, except in the case of idolatry and also if it requires killing another human life. It’s not regarded as evil to violate commandments such as working on the Sabbath or Yom Kippur, or eating non-kosher food, if human life is at stake. NOT saving a human life when one is able to is evil.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This looks like the scenario from the movie “Alive.”

Anyway, I couldn’t vote since I don’t see any options that approximate what I think I would do.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

The nearest resource centre is close enough to walk, but it is too far away to get there without food. Without food, you will all die before reaching safety.

I’d walk there or die trying.

I know its a hypothetical question, but it seems awful flawed if you say this “resource centre” is within walking distance yet impossible to get to unless one eats beforehand. Is there a caveat that all the people on the plane are starving Ethiopians or what?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’d walk there or die trying.

I’m sorry, but you didn’t make it.

I’ll be sure to let your family members know that you were more interested in pointing out flaws in hypothetical senarios and showing caricatures of starving black children rather than making it home alive,.

 

[domandcarols]

Ew…

 

[venite_adoremus]

I would hope someone remembered to pack the matches, because cooked flesh is better than raw.

 

[Irishmom2]

Really? I just don’t think I could eat someone. Not even if it means I would end up dead. It’s just too…eww. So in survival of the fittest, count me as one of the unfit.