Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, carrying 45 people, crashed in the Andes Mountains in 1972. A quarter of the passengers died in the crash and a few more passed away from the freezing temperature and injury soon after. After spending 12 days without proper clothing for the harsh environment, the 27 remaining survivors had exhausted their food supply and heard on a transistor radio that their search party had been called off. Being at such a high altitude and in low temperature, they needed food to survive, and the only available resource was the dead bodies of friends and family members. If they ate the dead, they would have a better chance at survival, if they didn’t then they most certainly would die. All of the people are/were Catholic and absolutely rejected the idea of cannibalism. Their religious morality was keeping them from trying to survive because they believed that they would be punished by God. Also, because cannibalism is deemed unacceptable, no one wanted to even consider the option due to guilt, fear, and the social construction. In a utilitarian sense, it wouldn’t maximize pleasure for most people to eat, but it would maximize survival. Morality is a matter of consequences. They should eat the dead because that would be the rational thing to do. Moral rules are rational rules and cannibalism is the rational option in this situation because it is in their self interest to be able to live. If they ate their deceased loved ones, it is not because they desire too. It would cause psychological problems for them, but it’s in their best interest.
It was 2 months before the crash survivors were rescued, and they survived by eating the dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment