If you were trapped on a snowy mountain with no food, would you eat one of your passengers to survive?

Answer 1

It depends on the outlook of survivability, but I would have to say, if none of them were my family members, or say, people I liked or loved, I would not make into an animalistic game, but would have consent.

If, however, there is a struggle, obvcourse, animal power I shall use to survive, as is only natural.

However, eating a child would most likely be off limits, that would not make any sense, it would be disgusting, and it would repulse the other members or passengers.

So--children, no, mothers, maybe, men, definitely--How much I were willing to survive.

it all depended on how the social conflict would play out. But it all depends on how you will to survive---but you can also do it in a civilized manner---one where people consent at the action---

for if you are extremely selfish...your odds at being eaten yourself become pretty high---it would make sense for the others to reprimand those most selfish, as a recoil to the grossness of the situation (why not eat those who would eat others at any cost first? makes sense justitce wise right?)...

so being brazen is not the best policy....waiting it out...suffering, and only at the last minute...agree---is the best policy...if you are too eager, your selfishness will be reprimanded.

Unless, obvcourse, everyone in company is selfish..then its very easy to settle things...just go for the one everyone mutually thinks is most yummy..but usually its jsut 1 or two people, maybe three, who are (screw everybody over me), and everyone who is like having double thoughts or doesn't want to reveal to anybody their selfishenss out of fear of retaliation...

so, the selfish people, are usually the oens to go..

this is extrapolated on data and group thinking based on game theory---such studies have been made, as well as the psychology of such situations..such as, if you are in a train and trapped in the first compartment-- you can either push a button, which deviates the train to a track that only kills one guy strapped to tracks...but if you don't push kills 10, all things being equal (what would you choose)--the situation has been broadcasted on evening news so your accountable for your action? what about this--have 10 people tied to train tracks and oen fat man infrotn of you, if you push the fat man you will stop the train from sheer weight and save the 10 along the tracks (all things being equal, such as you know their not rapists or anything), would you do it?

Usually its group dynamics, and in such dire straights, usually people seek a natural justice--a silent consent that ends up playing out...thsi is in group situations where they are in communication constatnly--such as in an enclosed room...in situations where there are smaller groups, then things might become more selfish and brute force used for survival---such as backstabbing, 2 consent to murder of a third--etc...

However, what you see, through repeated gaming, is that a natural justice seems to settle--or what the sum of the games seem to merge to...because all individuals do not want to be "punished" for their selfishness...and when those that do cross the line, cross the line---.in such dire situations..the group has a disgust effect,or use it as an excuse to get the rest of the group to punish the selfish---in other words, there is no way you can get out of it by saing "o, common, guys, I was just kidding, I ate him cuz I thought it was funny...really, seriously now" --so--usually those are the first to go--then the ones that are weaker, or do not have a very strong will...and then usually --if the game transpires for this long...a silent consent settles that their all going to die...so the ygo with a bang...or it just becomes dog on dog--this is usually at the end of the game.

STUDY GAME THEORY, it seems your the type that would like it.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Well first of all I would look around to see If I can get closer to the woods..i would try everything before I even decide what i should do..and never give up...I don't think I could eat another person's flesh.

Well..there is a true story called "Alive" where this really happened and they did end up eating one of the people on the team...

Answer 4

That's one of those questions that's easy to assume that we know what we'd do til we're actually in that situation. From a moral standpoint I would think that the answer would be no. But there's more to it than that. If I were on the verge of starvation, would my moral priciples over ride my survival instints? I think that under the circumstances given that I might succumb to cannibalism only as a last resort. Hopefully I'll never find out through experiance.

Answer 5

No I wouldn't. I would be making every effort to get off the snowy mountain and if that was not possible I would be making every effort to find food. I just could not eat another person. I would be the one most likely to be eaten.

Answer 6

Only the ones who have actually lived through that scenario know
for sure what they would do.

Thankfully, not many people survive a plane crash.

Answer 7

i could easily no longer do this (atleast thts what i could choose for to declare). yet questioning practically, if i've got been in that undertaking, hunger can do a lot of issues to people. So perhaps i could be forced to devour the different man or woman, no longer out of my very own will.... yet because of the choose for for some thing to maintain me alive. i be conscious of it sounds disgusting, yet this is fact!

Answer 8

If the person was already dead and I would eat them as a LAST RESORT(after trying to find food in another form).

Answer 9

Hell yea!! And I hate to say it but I don't need to be trapped for that long until I am picking out the tenderest looking person on the bus.

Answer 10

Yes. Social Darwinism. Survival of the Fittest. I would also take his clothes.