Using this idea, as it pertains to our fact pattern, one must assume that there is a dispute as to whether someone should be eaten. One can assume that there is a chain of command within the group of space travelers or the use of a democratic vote to determine the path taken. Either way, the social fact in this situation would be starvation. The two debatable points are should we or shouldn’t we eat someone to survive. Under these constraints, the source theory would be true.
Another jurisprudential justification of that would explain the events depicted in the fact pattern is whether the law of cannibalism just. When analyzing the concept of cannibalism, there is obviously an element of morality. As the fact pattern states, the group of Astronauts…show more content… Rousseau was a natural law philosopher who challenges Hobbes point of view. Hobbes maintain that people are naturally evil and if given the chance, they would continue to do evil things. Rousseau Partially agreed with Locke by saying that people for the most part were born good. The main difference Rousseau drew was that man gained evil tendencies through experiences as a product of their upbringing or civilization. With this in mind, it can be implied that the group of astronauts would chose to partake in the “festivities” given their social upbringing. Perhaps if one were vegan or extremely religious there would be a staunch opposition to indulge. In contrast, if we were to assume that all members of the group were of an equally frail state teetering on life and death, a gang mentality could emerge causing each member to point out flaws in themselves and other to prove why they should or should be eaten. In the same aspect someone might be to overcome with the situation and take someone else’s life to save their own. There are many variables that could go into the determination of life in dire situations. These moral values and mindsets could depend greatly the environment and on how one was
