Undefinable, but this is only based off of the ambiguity in your questions. The first likely scenario is you killed the person to survive, obviously a crime. Second, the person dies without you facilitating their death. Which would lead to more of a moral argument in court as you would have to defend your position of needing to consume them for your own survival. I don’t know off hand if there exists such laws from eating exotic meats in general, but there might exist the argument of fallacy of ridged generalization of the prosecutor charging you with such crime as you needing to consume such food in order to survive. If anyone agrees or disagrees with this analysis, please feel free to present your argument respectfully as I know nothing about anything and would love to learn from your perspective.
A person who was already dead? You’d have the defense of “necessity.” That means that what you did (abuse of a corpse) wasn’t as bad as what would have happened if you didn’t do it (your death.)
A person you killed? You’re going to prison. Necessity cannot be a defense for murder.
Try to starve slower than the other guy.
Latest Answers