Poll: A Tricky Moral Dilemma

[Jolly Co-operator]

I'd feed him. It was selfish and cowardly of him to refuse to be part of the feeding pact, assuming he would nevertheless willingly eat the meat produced from the pact, but that's not enough of a reason to allow someone to needlessly die. Punishment for non-compliance seems pointless here, since the chances of the same situation arising with the same people again is minuscule, and so there's nothing lost here from offering mercy.

Completely agree. I honestly can't see why you shouldn't save him, assuming that doing so doesn't put the others' chance of survival at risk. When you've got more than enough food to survive the trip back to civilization, allowing him to die just seems petty. If helping him to survive doesn't harm you in any way, is there really any good reason not to do so?

 

[DeltaEdge]

Well, it kinda depends I guess. Did the agreement specifically state that he absolutely relinquished any and all rights to any portion of sacrificial meat at any point in time? If yes, and he knew this when choosing not to partake in the selection, then no, he shouldn't be allowed to eat, because that would be unfair to the people that risked their lives for the chance to eat knowing full well that they could be eaten themselves.

That being said, if not letting him eat is murder, then sacrificing someone to eat in general seems just as bad, as suicide is illegal as well, so even allowing other people to eat you would still be illegal, and I'm pretty sure that it would be just as easy to prosecute in court as for letting someone who refused to take the risk starve, especially when you consider that if they were, say, on a lifeboat or something of the like, they probably didn't have convenient access to a gun, so basically, they probably had to inhumanely tear him limb from limb and he probably died a very painful death, so there may be some torture charges applicable as well.

So basically, if there's the potential for prosecution either way, and I'm up for some cannibalism to survive, then I probably wouldn't be a big enough man to allow that guy to eat if he voluntarily chose not participate in the selection.

 

[Auron225]

In a way, neither. Let me explain;

We're dividing up this fat guy evenly, right? I would be tempted to say "Let the starving man have some fat guy; we may as well save whoever we can" but ONLY if...

...it looks like you will reach civilisation with plenty of food to spare...

is true. I'm guessing this means everyone else has a decent chance of surviving anyway, right? Even so, I'd be scared of sharing with this guy becoming a reason for strife amongst the others later if things turn south.

So, since we're dividing up our portions evenly, I'd share part of my own portion with him. No other crew member has the right to complain since they aren't losing out on anything. Maybe I'll inspire others to do the same.

This is all of course coming from a person who has never been in any situation even remotely close to this one and if it actually happened I'm not sure I'd stick with my answer but I'm not going to create this scenario to find out

 

[Akytalusia]

considering the scenario, if you're sure of everything[footnote](1)you're going to make it to land (2)with plenty of food to spare (3)and he won't make it without eating[/footnote]then it's not even a dilemma. you offer him some spare food. he can take it or leave it, but there's really no other option here. keeping it from him out of spite is just, well, lethally immature. i couldn't imagine any rational adult being that childish in that situation.

 

[neoontime]

Feed him. Even though we all agreed to cannibalism, I still should have some ounce of human generosity left in me. I understand that maybe he thought he could hold off and knowingly accepted his fate but I don't understand the point of letting someone starve to death if we knowingly have enough. I mean assuming he's willing to take starvation understandably, I see no reason why I could offer him my share if only to keep him off the verge of dying. Of course, he'd be a cannibal too and my condition would be the next time to forcibly accept the chance to be eaten as well.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

This is a pretty easy solution to me. The hard part is over. This isn't about what's 'fair' anymore. It's about what's right. If you have the power to let everyone make it there alive then you should damn well do it.

 

[Shinsei-J]

You know for a minute there I thought this was going to involve drowning with two entities that may or may not involve a dog.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with JoJo on this one but only on the condition that if another has to go they would participate in the raffle.
For the sake of the poll I'd let him feed as it assumes that after the first sacrifice everything's fine but in an actual situation I'd despise them and make them swear on their life to the condition, but as much as I am a vengeful man I'm also not someone to let even an evil person die in front of me without giving them a chance to save themselves.
Not that this person is evil, just a coward

 

[suitepee7]

there are only two factors i will consider, because i see myself as a fairly decent human being:

1) we have more than enough food for ourselves, and some spare
2) there is a starving man there

i would consider deliberately starving a man when you have the means to feed him (with no cost to yourself) nothing short of murder

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I wouldn't feel comfortable letting someone die in front of me when I could easily save them, so I would, eventually. On the other hand, I wouldn't have come up with some stupid draw about it in the first place.

 

[rutger5000]

First of human meat generally has little nutritious value for other humans, especially not without any real means of preparing it (you're on a live boat ). I'd be much more inclined to use one of the passengers as bait to attract fish.
And no I would not feed him, nor would I allow others to give a part of their share to him. I'd consider it a great insult for that man to cannibalize on anyone who participated in the earlier draft. The only reason why it was morally acceptable to kill and eat the large man, was because it gave all those who participated in the lottery an equal chance of survival. It'd be different if the large men had asked me to distribute his flesh equally, I'd have respected that. These would be one of the few cases where I'd consider justice to be more important then compassion.

 

[rednose1]

You feed him. He'll die without food, and you have plenty to spare. Get angry with him afterwards, hold media press conferences if you'd like, but killing a man because he didn't agree with your plan isn't right.

 

[JimB]

You all eat your fill, and it looks like you will reach civilisation with plenty of food to spare, but the one man is still left starving and won't make to land without food. What should you do?
Let him feed, or let him starve?

Withholding food from a starving man because you need it is morally justified. Withholding food you don't need out of some bizarre, blind adherence to a contract written in a scenario that no longer applies is not. One man has already died for this; the death of another does not improve anyone's situation.

 

[Queen Michael]

I'd say yeah, okay, let him have a bite. On my watch, nobody's dying if I can help it.

 

[Mik Sunrider]

He made his choice now let him die by it. But I wouldn't let him starve, I would have thrown him overboard to drown.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

I don't see how this is a dilemma. The rules were clear and he alone chose not to eat. Allowing him to eat would be an insult to all those who risked their lives and to the one who sacrificed it.

 

[Sarge034]

If I fold in a game of cards I obviously have a right to the winnings, right? No. This person had no risk of being the one eaten but wants to partake in the reward afterwards. Who knows, if he had joined the raffle it might have been his selfish ass we were eating and the "fat man" would get to live. Also, if he starves to death we get to eat him without a raffle. It is incentive to actually join the raffle in a way.

In the end the biggest moral dilemma I, personally, would face in this scenario is the act of cannibalism itself.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Jesus... Getting a bit dark, are we?

Fuck it, if you've gone that far, why not just flip coin, right in front of him:

Heads, he feeds; tails, he gets ejected from the ship.

 

[Flutterguy]

Let him feed providing he would sacrifice himself if more food is needed.