Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I'd like to think not. Because you will weaken together, and not the fact that your advantage will allow you to even just bite someone, much less eat them.
This situation is depicted semi-comically and semi-tragically in one of Chaplin's films (I think, “Gold Rush”), when they were already hungry and thought that their partner was an appetizing chicken.
Hunger causes a person to lose their mind. No one can say what he will become in such a situation.
And I also heard about such a case: in besieged Leningrad, a mother fed the survivors of her small children (I think 2-3) with cooked pieces of meat of their little brother who died of hunger. So that at least they would survive.
Anything can happen in life.
They say that starvation causes a person to lose their mind, and can descend to cannibalism. I don't know, I haven't tested it myself to see if this is really the case. Well, in the case of a friend, I would rather ask to kill myself, so as not to experience the pangs of hunger. It doesn't matter when we get there…. So at least that without much torment and a clear conscience I would like to get THERE.
This is a tough test on the edge of the possible. If you think calmly, the answer is no. It's not just about morality, it's just about delaying certain death. But if you are lucky, and a person survives after this, no one knows how he will be able to live on: someone fell into depression, someone went crazy. In critical situations, no one knows how to behave. Here, many things will matter almost on a subconscious level: willpower, the system of chosen higher values, and the fear of death. By the way, the fear of death, like the pain threshold, is different for everyone. Some are afraid of starvation, others of pain, others of suffocation…
Of course, in a stressful situation, a person is capable of various “crazy things,” including such things as saving his life from starvation by eating meat. However, I would not eat, not just my friend's corpse, but anyone else's. I just know that if you eat meat in its pure form, you will immediately feel bad, and if you also eat it after a long fast, your body probably won't even be able to digest it and you will throw up. But even if you imagine that you will be able to cram this meat into yourself, then you will face a slow and painful death, from poisoning with cadaveric poison, + liver failure (an overabundance of protein) + a violation of the acid-base balance(acid will corrode you from the inside).�
Obviously, the question is not culinary, but philosophical, so one more answer: If you drop the biological component, that is, I will not become my friend anyway. I would rather ” persuade him to calm his mind in meditation, and quietly pass away at the end of his life forces, than allow such humiliations with which the subsequent life will become unbearable.
No, I couldn't have done it. It would be easier for me to starve to death than to kill a friend. Especially since I would have to suffer for the rest of my life after that.
Like in the “Platform”? Nope. After all, then you will have to live with it, look into the eyes of his parents (((And the human body, they say, is tasteless. *where can I get 130 characters?????????????????????*
Correctly written from above about instincts…
I remember a story told to me by a resident of besieged Leningrad
“Going up the stairs, we meet a neighbor(a decent person), and she offers cutlets(in besieged Leningrad!)”
If only you knew what cutlets are made of…
So it is in this situation: you will want to survive and not only that…
Without unnecessary arguments on the topic of animal nature in people and moral and ethical considerations, I will answer-yes. What's the point of me starving to death if I can survive? No matter how much others may deny this scenario, practice shows that in desperate situations like this, people prefer to use the opportunity to save themselves.
Now, full and not feeling thirsty, I would answer: “Definitely not!” But in a closed room, not being able to prematurely stop the torture of starvation by suicide in an acceptable way-who knows what I would be capable of? I hope that by the time I was ready to do something like this, I was so weak that I couldn't do it.
Most likely, being locked in a room, not knowing if the door will ever open at all, and whether there is any sense in such a crime for the sake of self-preservation.(prolong the torture and delay your demise) “I would have tried to get out of my life before my current priorities changed. Another question is whether it would have been possible to commit suicide, if I had had the guts… I hope you never have to check it out.
You are now trying to talk about the animal instincts that are dormant in us. It seems to me that a modern person does not know what boundaries of madness he can cross, therefore no one will give you a true answer, because the person himself does not know himself so well. In this regard, the situation from the movie “In the heart of the Sea” is suitable, where after the shipwreck they spent three months at sea and ate their own sailors. I've said it all.