[He continues, being egged on by the comments of the previous post...]Fair enough. But what if instead of an innocent teenaged boy, the person lying in the bottom of the boat near death were a condemned murderer who was due to be hanged upon arrival at port? (And he was very plump to boot.)
Notwithstanding the aversion to eating your fellow travelers (although they probably taste just like chicken), are your values about not taking a life still the exact same, standards-wise?
I am reminded of the VERY old joke about the man in the bar who asked the beautiful woman if she would make love to him for $10 (although I don't think the original joke used the term "make love") and she slapped him silly. Then he asked her if she would do it for a million dollars and she said, "Of course." And then (hell, you've all heard this when you were 10 years old) he says, "How about $100?" And again she slapped him up against the wall and said, "Just what do you think I am??"
Wait for it.
And he says, "We've already established what you are. Right now we are just haggling over the price."
Is that also somewhat true of your values about taking a life to save your own? I mean, would it make a difference if the meal-to-be were worthless scum? - if the price were right, metaphorically speaking?
If so, dear liberal, blow out your death-watch candles the next time Texas executes a child murderer. Your hypocrisy is showing.
But kudos to you if you walk the walk and truly wouldn't kill the worthless meal because it contained LIFE, period.
Me? I think I would have tried much harder to fish instead of pissing and moaning about my limited options until it was too late - maybe just take a few chunks out of him for bait. Sort of a maritime Shylock as it were.
Spock: "There are ALWAYS options."
---------
For those who missed the first party at #17, this is post #100 of my 2009 blog.
