Trolley Dilemma

[Smokey D]

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

If you know nothing other than that it's a choice between 5 and 1, yes, you flip the switch. I don't really see the dilemma other than that I probably wouldn't want to explain my decision to the family of the victim.

[griftadan]

i can't think of any possible unintended consequences so yes of course you flip the switch

a better one of these is the one with the sacrificing one blood donor to save 5 other lives scenario, that implications are more complicated

[Smokey D]

Okay, say you know nothing about the fivr but the one was your mother.

[monkeysonmars.]

As the question is 'should' you flip the switch, I'd still go with yes.

[Charlie Daniels]

Regardless of who the single person was, I'd be incline to say 'no'. But I'm not sure I can quite say why I think that.

Basically it's a "I'm going to just not do anything because I don't want to make a call on this so I'll let nature take it's course" kind of thing.

[monkeysonmars.]

not flicking the switch is an action in itself that you have chosen.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, realistically, if I'm just walking accross a foot bridge and I see what's happening I'm not going to exactly no what's happening (who knows, it could be a movie? they could be terrorists being executed or something?) then I think it's probably best to let nature take it's course.

But if it's been staged and you've been told (and can see for yourself) the entirity of what's going to happen, then sure why not?!

[flabbergast]

It's a pretty easy choice between my mom versus 5 people i don't even know. And also if it's just 5 people versus one and i don't know any of them.

But really you should just leave this type of crap to Indiana Jones.

[beso negro]

i'm disappointed. i thought this was going to be a physics problem.

anyways you don't flip the switch. the guy probably tied those people to the track for a reason.

[Aaron]

I'd save my mum. I'm being honest.

[mph4ever]

thats nice. real sweet. honestly

i would arrange for another trolley and kill both lots. its the kindest thing to do

[GreyHam]

with no emotional attatchment, id certainly flip the switch

if the one was my mother then no. all i can say is that im not strictly rational, im emotive. my mother dying would affect me and the people im close too far more than the 5 random chaps

of course, i SHOULD flip the switch anyway

but i wouldnt

[dei]

I'd derail the train.

[BridgeToSolace]

I'm not sure what I'd do.

But I should save the 5, regardless.

[thedeadwalk!]

This question has always bothered me as something akin to "do you love America?" It just feels philosophically bunk and a setup for a straw man argument before someone even says what they think.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a fan of utilitarianism.

[spitfirejunky]

I would flip a coin, then blame any disasterous outcome on the coin.

[Der Übermensch]

I wouldn't flip the switch. It's a matter of active vs. passive.

[Knifeboy]

I'd pee on the switch and hope for the best

[gregulus]

I can't think of a reason why the lives of 5 people would be more valuable than the life of one. Like Hunter said, I probably wouldn't do anything.

[RockAndRoll]

I can't think of a reason why the lives of 5 people would be more valuable than the life of one. Like Hunter said, I probably wouldn't do anything.

Well, if a life has any value at all then it stands to reason that five lives have more value than one.

[Volumnius Flush]

I'm pretty sure I'm not a fan of utilitarianism.

Duh, I knew I was missing something. I get it now. If i could just remember all the other types I could make an informed decision. But I can't... So

I would say that if it was my mother who was one, I would kill the five. If it was 6 total strangers, I would still kill the five. Why? If we can assume that I was placed in that situation for a reason, then the mad philosopher would know through his great philosophical knowledge that I would choose to kill the one over 5 as it would save lives so he actually placed who he really wanted dead on the other side of the track. That is who he truly wants to die and that person must be of some great value to something (world, nation, science,...)

[spitfirejunky]

You forgot the part that he's mad and he makes no such distinction.

[Mr. Ron]

Who are the five, and who is the one person?

[Lufnoops]

Why a mad philosopher? lol

Who are the five, and who is the one person?
It's not like you could make a character judgment anyway.

[Volumnius Flush]

You forgot the part that he's mad and he makes no such distinction.

Mad as in upset, or mad as in legally insane?

[spitfirejunky]

Mad as in upset, or mad as in legally insane?

I don't think upset philosophers go around tying people to train tracks.

[Iskandar]

I'm going to assume the people's lives are all of equal value here and flip the switch.

[Volumnius Flush]

I don't think upset philosophers go around tying people to train tracks.

Unless it was a part of his philosophy!

/rimshot

[VomitStainedCretin]

Well, if you're a negative utilitarian and all about eliminating suffering never mind whatever happiness people enjoy, the chance to terminate all possible future pain for five persons, as opposed to one, is irresistable.

[PerpetualBurn]

It seems like quite obvious sophistry to say that not pulling the lever is not an action in itself.

[guitrguy]

Are the people tied to the the track completely unknown?

[BridgeToSolace]

I don't think my mom could live with herself knowing that 5 people died so that she could live.

It would certainly weigh on her conscience.

[Charlie Daniels]

Okays well a runaway shopping trolley is hurtling towards a group of five people who have been tied to the tracks by a philosopher upset about something. Standing beside you is a really obese man. You have two options:

A) Do nothing, and have the five people curshed to death by said trolley.

B) Push the fat man into the trolleys path, thus killing him but saving the five people.

What do you do?

[MAthiAS]

Push the fat man obv.

[Charlie Daniels]

What gives you the right to sacrifice an innocent bystanders life? If you were walking down the street do you think it's okay for someone to kill you without permission just to save some people you've never met?

[Aaron]

If they're fat, sure.

[BridgeToSolace]

If you were walking down the street do you think it's okay for someone to kill you without permission just to save some people you've never met?

That depends, is my life hypothetically contingent on the death of 5 other humans?

Is it okay? Not really.

Is it more okay than letting the 5 people die?

I'd say so.

[guitrguy]

We are assuming the fat man would stop the trolley? If so, push the fat man.

[Against Miik!]

You should not push the fat man, even if he would stop the trolley. If you don't push him, you are merely an innocent onlooker. Wrong place, wrong time. The second you push the fat man, you become involved, and you make yourself responsible for decided who's lives are more important. Who knows? The fat man may be a doctor, and the five people may be homeless bums. You don't know.

I'm not saying this is what to do, I'm just saying, this is a possible way of looking at it.

[dei]

I'd throw myself in front of the trolley.

[guitrguy]

I'd throw myself in front of the trolley.

emo

[Volumnius Flush]

I have to side with Against Miik's logic and say to not push the fat man.

[Aaron]

It's a shopping trolley, it won't steer straight anyway, just leave it to roll away.

[BridgeToSolace]

If you don't push him, you are merely an innocent onlooker. Wrong place, wrong time. The second you push the fat man, you become involved, and you make yourself responsible for decided who's lives are more important..

Are you truly innocent, though?

Say there was no fat man, and you merely had to push the cart out of the way to save them. If you didn't push the cart when it was within your ability to do so, are you still innocent?

I say that you aren't. Through passivity you are allowing these people to die, and thus you are guilty.

So where does the question come in? The fat guy. It is not my responsibility or right to assign value to people's lives. Thus they must all be equal to me.

1 = 1

(5 x 1) > 1

So I sacrifice the value of the fat man to save the five people. Either way I have the blood of a human being on my hands. At least by saving the five I can know that people are alive because of it.

[Against Miik!]

Pushing the fat man in front of the trolley is no guarantee that the all or any of the five will live. The question does involve the fat man, and I am assuming that is the only way to possibly save these people. By pushing the fat man, you are most certainly condemning one man to death, with no guarantee of saving 5 others. By not pushing the fat man, you can guarantee that at least one person will not die who otherwise might have.

[Reaganista]

So where does the question come in? The fat guy. It is not my responsibility or right to assign value to people's lives. Thus they must all be equal to me.
that's retarded some people are clearly much better than others

[BridgeToSolace]

By not pushing the fat man, you can guarantee that at least one person will not die who otherwise might have.

A) Do nothing, and have the five people curshed to death by said trolley.

B) Push the fat man into the trolleys path, thus killing him but saving the five people.

Curshing no withstanding, it is assumed within the scenario that pushing the fat man will lead to the survival of the five.

[Against Miik!]

o yeah, I forgot about that.

I dunno. Utilitarianism says push the fat guy, assuming they are all relatively similarly worthy people. I probably wouldn't though. Again, pushing the fat man is basically murder, no matter how you look at it. Not doing anything can be justified as like "well things happen".

[Reaganista]

i would have to assume that the five are both mentally and physically weak to have been waylayed and taken captive by a philosopher and therefore not of much value to society the fat guy on the other hand i know little about just that hes fat which means hes slightly less likely to be of great value than the average slim person but still there's a chance that he's better than the type of people who get taken captive by philosophers

[Against Miik!]

Lol, Tway has a point. I've taken like three or four philosophy classes, and the profs are using their minds for a reason.

[Mr. Ron]

Why a mad philosopher? lol


It's not like you could make a character judgment anyway.

Sure I can.

[Oriah]

I'd first let it run the 5 down then back it up to get the remaining 1, that way it's fair.

[Oriah]

My question is why is a philosopher the bad guy?

...I would push the fat guy on top of the 5 people. Then we have a meat parade.

[Smokey D]

Well the mother one is only meant to be assessed after the first one.

[Smokey D]

The question assumes that pushing the fat man will in fact stop the trolley and save the five.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, the same angry philosopher has tied another five people up and pushed a shopping cart at them. This will surely kill them! But, luckily for the five people, the said philospher has made a device which will automatically cause a fat man to drop out of a net attached to the ceiling, landing infront of the trolley thus slowing it down and saving the lives of the five people tied up.

He hands you the control to the net... what do you do?

A) Let the 5 people die.

B) Press the button, and kill the fact man to save the other five.

:-)

[Smokey D]

Merging.

[GreyHam]

smash his face in for givin g you all these awward decisions...

but yes, push the button. in general, the sacrifice of one for 5 is not an unreasonable decidision

[Iscariot]

Okay, say you know nothing about the fivr but the one was your mother.

even with this in mind, i would still say "yes" to flipping the switch

it's better to be selfless and sacrifice someone you love than to sacrifice five innocent people to save one person that you personally care about

[Orange Piggy]

Maybe, but maybe its also a cold heartless act to weigh up the lives of people and kill your mother (as opposed to strangers).

If people choose to flip the switch and claim inaction is a decision you are morally responsible for, then is the decision not to help the starving also something you are morally responsible for?

[Iscariot]

Maybe, but maybe its also a cold heartless act to weigh up the lives of people and kill your mother (as opposed to strangers).

it's not really heartless

yes the victim is your mother but she's lived a long life

maybe not as long a life as she would have preferred, but the lives you're preserving are five potentially beneficial ones

who knows what these five people will accomplish whereas your mother has already done all that she intended to do

it's a more logical choice to sacrifice one for the safety of several

If people choose to flip the switch and claim inaction is a decision you are morally responsible for, then is the decision not to help the starving also something you are morally responsible for?

you completely lost me here

[monkeysonmars.]

it's a bit of a quantum leap given the the level of action necessary in each case but in essence yes. do you not feel it's your moral duty to give to third world charities when you have done absolutely nothing to gain your privileged position over them? (i can see the thread veering off topic now).

[peeted]

Bit late, but if i cared for the person on the one track i would probibly not flick the swich. Humans aint completley logical, ethics are an entirley human thing, therefore ethics canot be completley logical either. I dont think someone who chose inaction in this situation would have done anything particualy moraly wrong.

[Orange Piggy]

it's not really heartless

yes the victim is your mother but she's lived a long life

maybe not as long a life as she would have preferred, but the lives you're preserving are five potentially beneficial ones

who knows what these five people will accomplish whereas your mother has already done all that she intended to do

it's a more logical choice to sacrifice one for the safety of several

I guess thats fair enough. Though, I find running through a utilitarian calculus by itself to be a cold process. There is some merit in acknowledging and giving weight to human relationships.

What if its your daughter and the other 5 are about 60 years old?

you completely lost me here
Its a bit off track (hahah) but arguing inaction as a decision mixed with utilitarianism suggests that there is an obligation to at least provide basics for the impoverished if it is of little cost to us.

I'm not using it as a criticism or anything. Just trying to interpret it into real world problems.

[Smokey D]

What if the one is a baby and the five are terminal cancer patients with an indefinite but necessarily short amount of time left?

[Reaganista]

babies are hardly worth anything just make another one it takes 9 months

[VomitStainedCretin]

Get out your hedonic calculators everyone, I say!

[Iscariot]

I guess thats fair enough. Though, I find running through a utilitarian calculus by itself to be a cold process. There is some merit in acknowledging and giving weight to human relationships.

What if its your daughter and the other 5 are about 60 years old?

then i would save my daughter as she has more to live for

What if the one is a baby and the five are terminal cancer patients with an indefinite but necessarily short amount of time left?

i'd save the baby

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Sum of [total years remaining * potential to live a happy life * coefficient of personal relationship with rescuer factor] = saveability points


Whichever track has the most saveability points wins.

[BridgeToSolace]

What if the one is a baby and the five are terminal cancer patients with an indefinite but necessarily short amount of time left?

Honestly, I'd think the old person/cancer patient would rather I save the baby/daughter.

I know that I would save my hypothetical daughter, although it isn't necessarily what I SHOULD do.

I kind of agree with tway on the baby thing. Babies are not special when they're that young, make a new one.

[Jude]

It depends on the race of the people involved

[Reaganista]

Sum of [total years remaining * potential to live a happy life * coefficient of personal relationship with rescuer factor] = saveability points
that's totally off who the **** cares if their life will be happy it should be their potential value to humanity

[BridgeToSolace]

I'd rather someone be happy than be of potential value to humanity.

Assuming that they're mutually exclusive, though.

[Jude]

Neither one is really measurable especially not in the time it would take to flip the switch so who cares

[guitarded_chuck]

If you had no relationship to any of the people on the track, then yes obviously you would take 1 vs. 5.

If it were my mother I'd leave the train headed towards the 5.

[gregulus]

Well, if a life has any value at all then it stands to reason that five lives have more value than one.
If the individuals tied to the track are all completely anonymous, I don't think I could be a fair judge. I suppose that them being completely anonymous would make it easier to rationalize the decision to pull the switch, but I don't think that we can truly say that 5 combined lives are more valuable than 1 individual life. In fact, I think that the 1 individual would be rather opposed to such an idea.

[Dr Hooch]

If the individuals tied to the track are all completely anonymous, I don't think I could be a fair judge. I suppose that them being completely anonymous would make it easier to rationalize the decision to pull the switch, but I don't think that we can truly say that 5 combined lives are more valuable than 1 individual life. In fact, I think that the 1 individual would be rather opposed to such an idea.

depends if they're a selfish bastard

[VomitStainedCretin]

It depends on the race of the people involvedYou must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jude again.

[Reaganista]

I'd rather someone be happy than be of potential value to humanity.

Assuming that they're mutually exclusive, though.

that's completely retarded their happiness is immaterial to anything

[APatioDoor]

What if the 5 were family members, or close friends, and the other one was the person who Would cure cancer?

i aint sure what i would pick.

[CarnageFairy]

I'd be the one driving the trolley.

[Iskandar]

Obviously the person who would cure cancer. What kind of a choice is that?

[BridgeToSolace]

Considering most of my family will die from cancer anyway, I'd chose the guy who cures cancer.

[thedeadwalk!]

This has turned into some kind of bizarro Who'd You Rather?

[marcus_in_absentia]

I'd turn and run. Haha.

[Smokey D]

Don't be mad at the poachers in Africa. If somebody can find something to do in that God forsaken country, good for them. I'd say your problem is with the rich folks who buy fur coats or whatever they make out of ivory.

Extreme circumstances can't be used to justify everything.


I'm guilty of that. I hate people who wear fur. Its not even attractive. But I do have ivory bridge pins on my acoustic guitar. They sound sooo smooth. You wouldn't think they would make a difference, but really, thats where all the tone comes from.

There are too many elephants in South Africa at the moment anyway. They're planning (or maybe have already started) a cull.

[Against Miik!]

I will blame extreme circumstances. How can you worry about morals when you have to worry about survival?

Are you gonna tell me that when Katrina happened, those people should have not stolen food? Sure some took advantage of the situation, but I highly doubt those people in Africa are thinking thank God they live there because they can shoot some animals and make a buck.

[Smokey D]

I will blame extreme circumstances. How can you worry about morals when you have to worry about survival?


How far are you willing to take that line of thought?


Are you gonna tell me that when Katrina happened, those people should have not stolen food? Sure some took advantage of the situation, but I highly doubt those people in Africa are thinking thank God they live there because they can shoot some animals and make a buck.

No. But somethings are so bad that no amount of extreme circumstances justifies them.

[Against Miik!]

I will take it as far as it needs to go based on the circumstances. It's a relative. You can't say, like, I lost my job yesterday so I'm gonna go steal some food right now. Thats absurd. But you no, deserted on an island, no sign of anything edible anywhere, hell yeah I am going to kill some people and cook em up.

[Smokey D]

I can't accept the morality of killing people to sate your own hunger.

[Against Miik!]

Ok, then in that situation, given it is a bit extreme, I would die, and so would they.

[J Rad]

I can't accept the morality of killing people to sate your own hunger.

if i was starving to death and the only food source was a fellow human being i would kill them and eat them in hopes of surviving long enough to be rescued

in that situation it's either you or them and if you have a greater will to survive then they're just screwed

[Smokey D]

Ok, then in that situation, given it is a bit extreme, I would die, and so would they.

Depending on who dies first.

Although this is just a reframing of hte trolley dilemma.

[Against Miik!]

The way I see it, humans are still animals, when you really get down to it. Priority number one is survival. We haven't evolved beyond that, we just put ourselves into a situation where we don't have to worry about it, which is of course, a good thing. But put us back into nature, and we are no different than any other living being. When any other animal is hungry, does it debate the moral ramifications of killing another animal to survive? Hell no.

[Smokey D]

I dunno. If you can dispense with morality in extreme circumstances then you can potentially unzip it all the way back to the everyday.

[Against Miik!]

Thats exactly what morality is though, restraint from doing things that you consider bad. But badness isn't a concrete idea. It's relative. Cold blooded murder is bad. In a different context, killing to survive suddenly doesn't become murder.

[Smokey D]

Sure it does.

Mitigating circumstances may mean the act is less onerous or more justified but it doesn't make the act right.

[Against Miik!]

Well I guess we just disagree there. I've argued the best I can, so whatever.

It's just view that things like morality are subjective, based on a lot of variables, not just personal opinion.

[Lufnoops]

if i was starving to death and the only food source was a fellow human being i would kill them and eat them in hopes of surviving long enough to be rescued

in that situation it's either you or them and if you have a greater will to survive then they're just screwed

realistically they wont give you enough sustenance to last very much longer than if you just left them alone.

+ you guys can work together to figure something out, 2 heads are better than one.

+ you probably wont have the balls to kill somebody anyway. theyll be bloody and screaming and crying and panicking and weak and pathetic looking when you hit them with a rock behind their back.

+ if you ate them and then you go saved, you'd probably be psychologically damaged afterward when the sting of hunger isnt in your belly anymore and the reality of what you did hits you, you might not be able to justify it from a civilized perspective

+ you say that as if you already know you could take anyone out as long as you feel inclined to do so, so when youre stuck with a super beast of a person and they decide to eat you, tisk tisk

+ "will to survive" -- more like lack of will of to control your primordial nature. you write this like "will to survive" is a favorable thing when that's questionable because we've evolved as a species and "will to survive" has become something of a masturbatory credo

[Against Miik!]

realistically they wont give you enough sustenance to last very much longer than if you just left them alone.

+ you guys can work together to figure something out, 2 heads are better than one.

+ you probably wont have the balls to kill somebody anyway. theyll be bloody and screaming and crying and panicking and weak and pathetic looking when you hit them with a rock behind their back.

+ if you ate them and then you go saved, you'd probably be psychologically damaged afterward when the sting of hunger isnt in your belly anymore and the reality of what you did hits you, you might not be able to justify it from a civilized perspective

+ you say that as if you already know you could take anyone out as long as you feel inclined to do so, so when youre stuck with a super beast of a person and they decide to eat you, tisk tisk

+ "will to survive" -- more like lack of will of to control your primordial nature. you write this like "will to survive" is a favorable thing when that's questionable because we've evolved as a species and "will to survive" has become something of a masturbatory credo

I'm not gonna pretend to know how somebody would act in this given situation, obviously. But you are taking into consideration how people would act in everyday life. People have been known to do some crazy things in desperate situations, case and point, that guy who cut his ****ing arm off when he was stranded on that mountain.

[Lufnoops]

that guy cutting off his arm is different. we're talking about 2 people stuck together and facing the decision of whether or not to kill the other person for survival. what i dont get is why all morality disappears just because you're in a desperate situation, i can't imagine many people completely abandoning all thought for impulsive killing. and when you're deciding whether or not to kill the person and then you decide to go ahead with it you're giving into that impulse. you're arguing that that impulse is justifiable, not that their decision to kill is.

you're making the assumption that people dont have the ability (which makes killing justifiable, like insanity makes one not guilty) to stave off the impulse of killing, which is definitely arguable. and of course if they came to philosophical (i.e. my life is worth more than yours) conclusion to kill the other person isnt that a form of murder?

[Against Miik!]

Well of course, given human nature as we know it today, cannibalism certainly would not be the first thought in their heads. But, with no other source of food, eventually, I think two rational people would start to think about it.

Of course, there are exceptions, certain variables that come into play. Love, or compassion, for example. Given that the two people are a mother and her small child, the mother, if she is a good one, will most certainly do anything in her power to make sure her child lives, even if it means her death. Although I feel the same thing would be true among most all mammals.

[Charlie Daniels]

realistically they wont give you enough sustenance to last very much longer than if you just left them alone.

+ you guys can work together to figure something out, 2 heads are better than one.

Hardly.

Two people consume twice as much of the precious, little resources you have left. Not to mention, most people are difficult to work with as they go to pieces easily...

[Futue te Ipsum]

Okay, say you know nothing about the fivr but the one was your mother.selfish, but no. My mother is more important to me than 5 randoms.

unless those randoms include my best friends, sister, dad, etc.

[Dr Hooch]

well what if you've NO IDEA who the other five are and it could be literally anyone

[1338 h4x0r]

I'd push the stack.

idk

[mocha bear]

I would probably save my mum, but if they were all random people, I wouldn't flip the switch.

[rasputin]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but perhaps it would be a good idea to put the trolley dilemma in contrast with this:

You're a doctor, and have 5 patients suffering from various ailments, and all of them need a particular organ transplant as soon as possible, or they will die. However, they are on a huge waiting list, and at the rate the list is going they will die before an organ can be provided. Also keep in mind that each patient needs a different organ. A 6th man, who is very healthy, comes in for a regular check-up, and you notice that each of his organs are functioning well. Do you kill the one man and distribute his organs among the 5, or do you leave the 5 to die?
In this scenario, we need to also assume that the transplant patients will have a very good quality of life post-op, and the transplant will give them many years of joyful living.

When it comes down to it, you can work the argument in such a way that this scenario is basically identical to that of the trolley scenario. The difference is, on first instinct people will say they would flick the switch for the trolley scenario thus killing the one, but with the doctor scenario one would not kill the healthy man. Hence it being the greatest philosophical dilemma in history :P

[ringworm]

if the one was my mom, there would be 5 dead people on the other track


in the case of the one above, i would not kill the one to let 5 live

[1338 h4x0r]

What if the one person were your dad

Huh, huh?

[Smokey D]

It is a different thing, I think, to kill someone unconnected to the event and who will otherwise live a normal happy life and to make a choice between killing two sets of people who will otherwise die.

But maybe not.

[rasputin]

It can be worded so it's not so different. If you don't flick the switch, the 5 will die. If you don't get the organs, the 5 will die. Flicking the switch, although not directly killing someone, results in the same consequences as killing the healthy man. We went through this problem with a little depth in an ethics unit I did last year, and it's really an intriguing problem.

[Iscariot]

realistically they wont give you enough sustenance to last very much longer than if you just left them alone.

it's more than you would already have in that situation

+ you guys can work together to figure something out, 2 heads are better than one.

i'm speaking in terms of, "we've been stuck here for weeks now and i'm starving to death it's you or me" obviously working together is the first option but isolation and starvation effect your decision making skills

+ you probably wont have the balls to kill somebody anyway. theyll be bloody and screaming and crying and panicking and weak and pathetic looking when you hit them with a rock behind their back.

how much do you want to bet that if i was starving to death and my fellow human was the most immediate source of sustenance i wouldn't have the balls to kill them

you're assuming that both people are mentally stable to begin with

+ if you ate them and then you go saved, you'd probably be psychologically damaged afterward when the sting of hunger isnt in your belly anymore and the reality of what you did hits you, you might not be able to justify it from a civilized perspective

everyone has coping mechanisms

+ you say that as if you already know you could take anyone out as long as you feel inclined to do so, so when youre stuck with a super beast of a person and they decide to eat you, tisk tisk

now you're conceding that one would actually have the will to eat their fellow survivor so which is it "you wouldn't have the will" or "they'd eat you so what would you do" stick with one option please

+ "will to survive" -- more like lack of will of to control your primordial nature. you write this like "will to survive" is a favorable thing when that's questionable because we've evolved as a species and "will to survive" has become something of a masturbatory credo

because obviously our evolution as a species holds total merit in a life or death situation in which you're stranded on an island with one other person and limited food sources

yeah sorry what was i thinking i would build a colony full of skyscrapers and computers and just email someone to send me an airplane i forgot people don't do desperate things in desperate situations anymore