^^^You can cannibalize a person without having to kill them. In literal life-death situations it's unfortunate that some people might not be among the current group of survivors.

Imo murdering to cannibalize should have been a separate option, if that is what was intended by the poll. Because it adds in a separate moral dynamic. It's not only "Is it necessary to eat someone else's body to survive", it's "Is it necessary to kill someone to survive".

Is it necessary to kill AND eat someone to survive? That's gotta be double evil. It may be necessary to kill at some point, it may be necessary to eat a corpse you found (or eat with sketchy tribals), but to kill and eat the person, perhaps not.

I read the title wrong, I thought it said something about which one was more evil not which one was a necessary evil. Oops

^ I also read the title incorrectly as well! A third "Oops"!

Such disregard for one's own soul in all these replies.

Opening the door for one of these is cracking the door open for all of them. For they all have the same root. I do X, even though evil, but X will "benefit" me.

Enslaving, torturing and killing people to take their stuff comes packaged in with prostituting I guess.

Also as sax said, eating isn't something you do to "benefit" you, it's a need, and in extreme cases (isolation/famine) a human body is all you might have.

In the wasteland its stupid to expect you to NOT kill somebody. That body will probably not be buried nor the person mourned, in this case why wouldn't you eat them?

Also as sax said, eating isn't something you do to "benefit" you, it's a need

What is the distance between benefit and need?

in this case why wouldn't you eat them?

There is more to life than merely surviving.

The difference between benefit and need is that if you don't do the things you need to do you die.

Replacing "Want" with "Benefit" is a mistake. Because fulfilling a Want and a Need can benefit a person(s). That is why dudes fulfill a Want or a Need, it is to benefit them and/or others.